The Blue State

Video: Fox's Pinkerton says winning war more important than protecting civil liberties

Fox News' conservative pundit Jim Pinkerton was at it again last weekend.  This time, when discussing whether the New York Times was right to disclose to taxpayers the Administration's secret program that allows the government to have access to the bank records of millions of Americans, Pinkerton said that protecting civil liberties in this country is less important than winning the war on terrorism.  The question I ask is why do we have to choose between one or the other?  Why can't we win the war and protect our civil liberties at the same time?:

Click to watch video clip

------------ Partial Transcript ----------

JIM PINKERTON: "...it is yet to be shown that we can win a war against an adversary with this media climate and culture in terms of reportage -- what can be leaked, what can be revealed."

ERIC BURNS (HOST): "Quickly, do you fault the media for this?"

CAL THOMAS: "Yes.  Say yes."

JIM PINKERTON: "If we lose the war, that would be bad."

NEIL GABLER: "But what if we lose our civil liberties?"

JIM PINKERTON: "Well, I'd rather lose our civil liberties than lose the war."

CAL THOMAS: "Amen."

I get the feeling that if Bill Clinton were in power, conservative pundits like Jim Pinkerton would be saying the exact opposite about civil liberties.  Let this be a lesson to all of you, not just in terms of interpreting politics, but how you deal with close friends, family or co-workers.  You never know for sure whether someone is an authoritarian (or a control freak) until you evaluate how their behavior changes when they are put in a position of power.  George W. Bush, before he became President, ran as a libertarian Republican.  During his 2000 campaign, Bush said, "My opponent trusts government. I trust you."  Six years later, Bush presides over the largest expansion of government over the last generation. 

When I think of true libertarians, I think of the ACLU, Tucker Carlson, Russ Feingold, and my dear uncle.  When I think of phony libertarians, I think of John Stossel, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and the vast majority of the Fox News team. 

You never know a person's true colors until they are offered new power.

(By the way, I am not quite a libertarian, and have never claimed to be one -- regardless of who is president or in control of Congress.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: Leftwing Nutjob, The Unknown Candidate, Big Brass Balls, Hominid News, Brilliant at Breakfast, Thoughts of an Average Woman, I Cite, Hughes for America, MLM Liberal.

Spying and efficient government do not go together

The admission that the Administration has been snooping into the bank records of millions of Americans without a search warrant prompted Treasury Secretary John Snow to quickly jump to the President's defense and justify the program.  However, his justification was not a good one.  Interestingly, he thinks that the government spying on its citizens actually helps protect individual privacy:

Outgoing Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said that the program, ineffect since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, is the thing"I'm proudest of" in his tenure and insisted that strong safeguardsprotect the privacy of individual Americans. "It's really government atits best," Snow said at a news conference. "It's responsiblegovernment. It's effective government."

But is this really effective government?  John Allen Paulos, a professor at Temple University, says it is a waste of resources:

It should be reiterated that such broad scale wiretapping and datamining is not only of questionable legality if not downrightunconstitutional, but it is also ineffective and a waste of resources.Terrorism is a problem, but so are handguns, health care, the deficit,the environment, education, and a host of other issues that are moreimportant to our personal and, I think, our national security.

Legally speaking, spying on Americans by the NSA for terrorism purposes must be be done with approval from the FISA courts, which was the whole reason FISA courts were set up in the first place -- according to the 1976 Foreign Surveillance Act.  Secondly, the act of a phone company handing over records of its customers, whether to the government or anyone for that matter, violates the 1996 Telecommunications Act that was specifically designed to protect consumers.  Thirdly, preventing both judicial approval and legislative oversight into this program runs counter to the constitution itself.  But as far as legal problems are concerned, this is just scratching the surface.  So, for many reasons, the Administration has a long way to go in order to justify such a program.
------------------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this issue: Finance Trends Matter, Moron Cowboy, The Truth about Political Stuff, The Indisputable Truth, News Coma, On Life as I Know it, Majikthise.

Spying on Americans more far reaching than previously thought

It was learned today that President Bush's secret surveillance techniques are far more reaching than merely warrantless wiretapping and getting phone our records from telephone companies.  The Associated Press is reporting that the Executive is also tracking the financial records of millions of Americans:

A secret CIA-Treasuryprogram to track financial records of millions of Americans is thelatest installment in an expansion of executive authority in the nameof fighting terrorism. The administration doesn't apologize for President Bush's aggressive take on presidential powers. Vice President Dick Cheneyeven boasts about it.

Still, Treasury Secretary John Snow insists that the program is "consistent with our democratic values":

Speaking at a press conference Friday, Treasury Secretary John Snowinsisted the program was "consistent with our democratic values" and"an important source of information about global financial flows."

The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times reported that the records were examined under a series of broad U.S. subpoenas, with the Timesreporting that Treasury officials did not seek individualcourt-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions.

As was the case with the wiretaps and phone records, it seems like this is being done without full Congressional oversight.  When it comes to monitoring the transactions of those living abroad, most reasonable people would not have a problem with that, and would think that foreign surveillance is necessary for protecting the security of this country.  But to monitor millions of Americans, without getting judicial or legislative approval, goes against the very purpose of the three branches of government that are supposed to check one another.  We are not merely a nation of men, but more importantly we are a nation of laws.  No person and no Administration should ever be allowed to rise above the law.  Furthermore, and even more hypocritically, Bush's warrantless spying runs counter to the conservative ideal that government doesn't know best.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Other blogs writing about this: Last Chance Democracy, Electric Monkey Pants, Prairie Weather

Clinton's privacy bill of rights legislation could be improved

Last week, Hillary Clinton unveiled a "privacy bill of rights" legislation with the intent of protecting consumers from fraud.  Part of the bill will call for the creation of a privacy czar within the Executive Branch -- or, in other words, a cabinet level post dedicated to protecting the privacy of consumers.

But maybe because the right-wing presidents like the one in office tend not to want privacy protections in place, the czar could actually be used by the president to secretly undermine consumers.  He might nominate a czar with major connections to big business. 

So, coupled with the privacy czar in the Executive Branch, Clinton's legislation should also include the creation of an investigative wing within the Legislative Branch, similar to the Government Accountability Office, that reports to Congress on privacy related matters.  Therefore, both the Executive and Legislative Branches would be in a great position to protect consumers, while at the same time balancing against one another just in case either was controlled by those whose policies hurt consumers.

Hillary Clinton tries to get back progressive support with privacy bill

New York Senator Hillary Clinton has realized, with all the latest buzz about Al Gore and Barack Obama possibly running for president, that the Democratic base is second-guessing her as a likely national candidate.  Her speech this week that rejected the idea of a troop withdrawal drew large booes from the crowd on hand, as well as resentment from the blogosphere.

So in an effort to re-energize her support among the progressive base, Clinton is unveiling a piece of legislation that would set up a privacy bill of rights.  For the reasons above, she chose a liberal justice group called the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy as the venue to announce this legislation:

"Modern life makes many things easier and many things easier toknow, and yet privacy is somehow caught in the crosshairs of thesechanges," Clinton said in a speech to a left-leaning legal group.

Clinton's speech on protecting consumers from identity theft andcitizens from government snooping was the latest in a series of talksbilled as "major addresses" by aides. Previous speeches were on energyand the economy.

Part of the bill would also consist of creating a cabinet level post in the White House that would protect privacy and report back to the President.

In my view, the great part about this bill is that it would help protect medical privacy.  As far as warrantless NSA wiretaps are concerned, an issue that is at the forefront of debate, it is not clear as of now how far the bill will go to protect Americans in that regard.  It seems like the Privacy Rights and Oversight for Electronic and Commercial Transactions Act of 2006, which is what Hillary's "privacy bill or rights" is actually called, is more concerned with consumer protections from identity theft and not from wiretaps.

Hillary Clinton put out her own press release on her web site about what the bill contains.

(Related news)

Arlen Specter flip-flops on warrantless wiretaps

One day after standing up to Vice President Dick Cheney for not disclosing information to the Congress about the secret domestic wiretap program, Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter is expected to unveil a bill that would give the President pretty much any power he wanted to spy on Americans.  The Washington Post explains Specter's sudden move to appease Bush:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has proposed legislationthat would give President Bush the option of seeking a warrant from aspecial court for an electronic surveillance program such as the onebeing conducted by the National Security Agency.

Sen. Arlen Specter's approach modifies his earlier position that theNSA eavesdropping program, which targets international telephone callsand e-mails in which one party is suspected of links to terrorists,must be subject to supervision by the secret court set up under theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The new proposal specifies that it cannot "be construed to limit theconstitutional authority of the President to gather foreignintelligence information or monitor the activities and communicationsof any person reasonably believed to be associated with a foreign enemyof the United States."

Just months ago, Arlen Specter said just the opposite to NBC's Tim Russert about Bush's warrantless domestic wiretap program:

"The Authorization for the use of force doesn't say anything about electronic surveillance.  The issue was never raised with Congress.  And there is a specific statute on the books, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which says flatly that you can't undertake that kind of surveillance without a court order."

So what changed?  Clearly, Specter is reversing course because of internal pressure originating from within the Republican Party.  His letter to Dick Cheney probably angered a few Senate leaders, who told Specter to reverse course, which he did.

Cheney manipulated phone companies into not talking to Judiciary Committee about wiretaps

You can expect the issue of President Bush's warrantless domestic wiretap program to pop back into the news for at least the next month.  Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter wrote a letter to Dick Cheney criticizing the Vice President for keeping his committee out of the process of overseeing the program, which the White House is supposed to allow by law.  The letter also hints at a growing personal feud between the two.  Read this -- you'll get a laugh:

"I was surprised, to say the least, that you sought to influence,really determine, the action of the committee without calling me first,or at least calling me at some point," Mr. Specter wrote. "This wasespecially perplexing since we both attended the Republican senatorscaucus lunch yesterday and I walked directly in front of you on atleast two occasions en route from the buffet to my table."

All this talk about buffets is making me want to plan a trip to Vegas!

On a more serious note, the the Thursday edition of the USA Today spelled out precisely the problem, and how Cheney's personal relationship with phone companies is going too far:

The Bush administration instructed telephone companies not to discussclassified information about domestic intelligence programs with theSenate Judiciary Committee, the panel's chairman said in a letter toVice President Cheney on Wednesday.

This is really bordering on illegal.  The White House cannot hold secret meetings with private companies without disclosing those meetings to the Senate, or in this case the Judiciary Committee.  The White House held those meetings in private, plus they told phone companies not to talk to the Judiciary Committee because the information was classified.  This is a case of the Executive Branch actively trying to underline another branch of government.

So will Specter actually do anything about it?  Probably not.  That Republican, although I admit he is very moderate when it comes to the issues, does a lot of talking but really fails to actively work against the Administration during committee hearings.  Is this letter a hint that he plans to take more of a principled stand than usual?  Let's hope.

Negroponte puts NSA legal troubles ahead of preserving citizens' rights

President Bush wants to throw out all the NSA domestic spying lawsuits because such lawsuits would force classified information to be revealed in a closed court room:

In papers filed late Friday, Justice Department lawyers said itwould be impossible to defend the legality of the spying programwithout disclosing classified information that could be of value tosuspected terrorists.

National Intelligence Director John Negroponte invoked the statesecrets privilege on behalf of the administration, writing thatdisclosure of such information would cause "exceptionally grave damage"to national security.

As a political science/history student, I cannot help but draw parallels between what we are seeing today and the propaganda during the Cold War.  The House hearings during the late-40s and early-50s involving Hollywood screenwriters accused of being communists were part of a sustained effort to snoop into the lives of anyone nuanced enough to ever question the domestic-driven U.S. foreign policy.  We are watching the same thing unfold today.  Although the a very legitimate battle against terrorism continues abroad, there are a few individuals heading government agencies here that are trying to get the government to wage war against its own law-abiding citizens.

Domestic surveillance by the NSA is supposed to occur with the oversight of both the legislature and our judicial system.  If a U.S. citizen feels that his or her privacy is being violated, then that is where our Judicial system comes in to at least hear the cases of those people.  If there is no way for those people to be heard, then there is absolutely no check on the Executive agencies in question.

Like during the Cold War, today National security is the ultimate trump card being used to outweigh all other matters in government.  What it comes down to is one question: is it more important to prevent the disclosure of classified information in a closed court room; or is it more important to see to it that every citizen has the right to be fully represented by our judicial system?  You make the call.

The low-down on the NSA's "secret rooms"

The progressive blogosphere has been abuzz about these reported "secret rooms" that allow the NSA to monitor all "electronic voice and data communications" coming from the AT&T switching center in San Francisco.  Brian Ross and Vic Walter, who have had one busy week, are all over this story:

New details on "secret rooms" allegedly established inside anAT&T switching center in San Francisco have been made public in asworn affidavit filed in court by a former AT&T employee, MarkKlein.

The affidavit was filed in support of a request by the ElectronicFrontier Foundation for a preliminary injunction to shut down the NSArooms.

According to the heavily-redacted eight page document, the NSAequipment is able to divert "the contents of all the electronic voiceand data communications" moving through the AT&T facility.

Klein was briefly given access to the room, which he says the NSA installed in 2002.

Klein describes the AT&T facility as "one of the largest internet switching points in the United States."

The government unsuccessfully sought to stop the lawsuit againstAT&T, but a judge has ruled that details will be kept secret.

Klein has previously provided a short public statement, but thecourt filing represents a more detailed description with broadercontextual details.

A hearing on the request for the preliminary injunction is scheduled for June 8.

An AT&T spokesman gave the following statement, "AT&T will not comment on pending litigation."

So what does all this mean, you ask? 

It means, as Google Watch's Ben Charny explained in his latest column, that the NSA was able to monitor "phone calls, e-mails and Internet sessions since 2003 without a warrant or court supervision" -- all from those secret rooms.  Even more revealing, this was done without complete oversight from the Senate Intelligence Committee.  Republican Chairman Pat Robertson and Ranking Democrat Jay Rockefeller of that committee were given a broad run-down of what the NSA was doing.  It is still unclear whether they were briefed about these "secret rooms."  But the other members of the committee went uninformed, which goes against precedent going back to ever since the passing of the 1978 Foreign Surveillance Act. 

The President is supposed to "consult" Congress on matters such as this.  The definition of the word "consult" means to "get or ask advice from."  Only briefing two out of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate does meet the lawful standard.

Both the NSA and AT&T have a lot of explaining to do about these "secret rooms."

Gonzales stops oversight into his own role in rubber-stamping White House NSA policy

More than ever, especially after the poor planning for hurricane Katrina and the strategic blunder of a war in Iraq, we are learning a lot about how a bunch of allied, power-hungry micro-managers are a whole lot more damaging to this country than having a level-headed, efficiently funded bureaucracy with checks to prevent an abuse power.

Today, we were reminded once again why having a small group of people with a large amount of power runs the risk of allowing potential abuses within the system.  A report in the National Journal explains how Alberto Gonzales squashed an effort by his own Justice Department to investigate his weak, rubber-stamp oversight into Bush's warrantless domestic spy program:

An internal Justice Department inquiry into whether department officials -- including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft-- acted properly in approving and overseeing the Bush administration'sdomestic eavesdropping program was stymied because investigators weredenied security clearances to do their work. The investigators,however, were only seeking information and documents relating to theNational Security Agency's surveillance program that were already inthe Justice Department's possession, two senior government officialssaid in interviews.

It is pretty obvious why President Bush keeps nominating his special counsels, such as Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales, for all these high posts.  They are 'yes sir' people with lasting loyalties to the President.  A patronage system like that only invites the possibility of having our Executive Branch being run by a group of allied individuals that make rubber stamping White House policy a higher priority than enforcing the law.

There is nothing wrong with the Executive Branch having their own ideological view about how to fight the war on terrorism.  But to prevent both internal and external oversight into the manner by which the Executive Branch routinely carries out that ideology goes against the very principles that our government was founded upon.