Bush was Right!

When confronted by the NY Times with a story about the administration's NSA program of warrantless wiretaps and email surveillance, President Bush immediately called for an investigation of the leak, citing irreparable damage to national security. My immediate reaction was "Du-uh, don't you think Al Quaeda already presumed that the government was tapping their sat phones and cell phones if possible?" Where is the risk to national security because just because we now know that there were warrantless searches as well as those backed by warrants from the FISA court.

Well, I stand corrected. I have just learned that national security WAS compromised by disclosure of the NSA program of warrantless searches!

"How?" you might ask? Well, the Washington Post reported today that the FISA court, led by Justice Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, will meet shortly to be briefed on the program and discuss the legality of the NSA surveillance program. According to the Post's "government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court," there is concern among the judges that some of the warrants issued by the court may be tainted by the secret surveillance program and will be voided. There was even concern by one judge that the FISA court could be disbanded if the administration does not need its warrants.

Do you see the damage that the NY Times story has done? The NY Times may cause the voiding of warrants on suspected terrorists (Matthew Cooper? Howard Dean? Sen. Harry Reid?) and even the disbanding of the FISA court!

Yes, when the President lies to lead our country into an unjustified war, destroys our international reputation and tramples on the constitution, our national security will be sacrificed. The only question seems to be, who can he hang the blame on!

Alberto Gonzales, Constitutional Scholar

Well, I freely admit to not being a constitutional scholar. Yet, I do believe that I have an understanding of the basic principles of logic and common sense. Alberto Gonzales is schooled in law, but seems to be less well educated in constitutional law. Logic? Common sense? Don't get your expectations too high. Here are some quotes from a news conference held to "educate" the public about the NSA warrantless wiretaps.

But first, a few observations: Despite all the obfuscating rhetoric, constitutional defenses and "activist" interpretation of law by Bush and Gonzales, three things seem very clear. Given the lattitude allowed by FISA, it seems logical that the only reason the government would need a warrantless wiretap is to conceal from the FISA judges the identity of people being wiretapped. This begs the question: Who was the NSA wiretapping? Reporters? Elected democratic politicians? High-level Saudi investors in the Carlisle Group? Until the administration provides evidence that the program was used only to wiretap international calls to card-carrying Al Quaeda members, we can only speculate.

Second, the FISA courts do not prevent the "agility" demanded by the NSA surveillance program. The rule is, "listen first, get warrant later." Under FISA, you can listen to any conversation and do the paperwork to apply for a warrant ex post facto. Even if the warrant is denied, you still have transcripts of the conversation in hand. While Gonzales says that FISA is directed at long-term surveillance, from what I read, this is only true if one wants to continue the surveillance.

Third, I hate to break it to the President, but I am almost 100% certain that Al Qaeda members had a strong suspicion that American intelligence operatives were trying to intercept their phone communications. By reporting the fact that the Bush administration was conducting warrantless searches, the NY Times did NOT damage the national security. Only the reputation of the President.

Anyway, here are some quotes from the press conference by Attorney General Gonzales and General Hayden. You can find the transcript here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html

Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program.

Question: General, when you discussed the emergency powers, you said, agility is critical here. And in the case of the emergency powers, as I understand it, you can go in, do whatever you need to do, and within 72 hours just report it after the fact. And as you say, these may not even last very long at all. What would be the difficulty in setting up a paperwork system in which the logs that you say you have the shift supervisors record are simply sent to a judge after the fact? If the judge says that this is not legitimate, by that time probably your intercept is over, wouldn't that be correct?

GENERAL HAYDEN: What you're talking about now are efficiencies. What you're asking me is, can we do this program as efficiently using the one avenue provided to us by the FISA Act, as opposed to the avenue provided to us by subsequent legislation and the President's authorization.

Our operational judgment, given the threat to the nation that the difference in the operational efficiencies between those two sets of authorities are such that we can provide greater protection for the nation operating under this authorization.

The conclusion here seems unmistakeable: If you don't like the restraints of executive power inherent in existing legislation and you know Congress wont agree to expanding these powers, simply circumvent the law. If the current legislation is deemed "inefficient," evade the legislative requirements and set up your own process that expands executive power.

The arguments that these actions by the executive branch are authorized by Article II of the constitution in the language regarding the President's role as commander in chief and the Authorization for Use of Military Force act passed by congress after 9-11 are dubious. In the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, [ http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-6696 ] the "activist" court seems to be equating a resolution for the use of force with a formal declaration of war. Since the US has marched its armies across the glove for the last sixty years without a declaration of war, we may excuse Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush for being a bit confused on the matter. However, I would expect more from the Supreme Court. Interestingly, Antonin Scalia dissented from the plurality opinion in the Hamdi case.

"What, Me Lie?"

I guess they don't call the warrantless searches "secret" for nothing. If you admitted it, it wouldnt be a secret. Here is George Bush's comments on wiretaps a full three years after he instituted the NSA surveillance program:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." -- George Bush, April 20, 2004

Misleading or Lying?

This was written a few weeks ago, as a letter to the editor, but I think it is still relevant so I will post here.

Once again, Vice President Dick Cheney has accused critics of "corrupt and shameless" revisionism in suggesting the White House misled the nation in a rush to war in Iraq. Let me provide just one of many examples of the Bush administration’s deception leading up to the invasion of Iraq documented in the excellent book All the President’s Spin.

On Sept. 7, 2002, President Bush stated “…when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied - finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic – the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon.” I don’t know what more evidence we need.” The U.N. inspectors were “finally” denied access in 1998 and the president’s clear implication was that Iraq’s capabilities were current. Yet, the IAEA’s report, issued in 1998, referred to Iraq’s capability in 1991! It further concluded Iraq’s nuclear program had been eliminated by the Gulf War and the ensuing inspection program and that Iraq did not possess “any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable material of any practical significance.”

When challenged on this point, White House spokesman Scott McClellan first suggested that the President had referred to a 1991 IAEA report, overlooking the fact that no IAEA report on Iraq was released that year. Later, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer averred that the claim was from a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Unfortunately for Bush and Fleischer’s credibility, the referenced report was not released until two days after Bush’s original claim.

In referring to Iraqi weapons capabilities from a decade earlier than he knew were no longer viable, was Bush attempting to mislead the American people? Maybe not. Maybe he was just flat out lying!

Solsticial Musing - 2005

As the sun completes another revolution around the sun, beginning a new year, I wish for you longer, sunnier and warmer days; a renewed positive outlook on our world; and great hope for the coming new year.

As I was musing on solsticial celebrations recently, I began to reflect on why this day has always been so significant to humans – much more so than the summer solstice or the equinoxes. For thousands of years, people have celebrated this astronomical event, an event that combines the most important influences in our world: the workings of natural forces and the amazing accomplishments of the human mind.

My interest in the holiday was stimulated by my yearning for winter light. As the days shortened and my spirits dimmed, I learned to look forward to this special day. I even copied an almanac of sunrise and sunset times so that my spirits might be buoyed by the promise of earlier sunrises and later sunsets – and more life-giving light!

For agricultural societies, however, the winter solstice was significant for an even more important reason. By carefully tracking the sun’s movement, plantings could be timed to avoid the killing frosts of late winter and spring. By carefully observing a problem, compiling a body of evidence and data, and using human creativity to analyze the data, early scientists were able to better understand their universe and provide for a better life for themselves and others.

Did you ever wonder how those clever scientists thousands of years ago – those early Hopi elders or Druid priests – determined the exact day of the solstices and equinoxes to build their astronomical markers such as Chacoan great houses or the Stonehenge complex? I remember when an archaeoastronomer posed that question to a large group of students at the University of Arizona in the 1970s. Not one person had the answer. Yet, so-called “primitive” people from around the world discovered a means to determine that day even if they did not understand the astronomical mechanics of the solar year. (Email me if you want to know how they did it.)

As I strove to understand the mechanics of the rotation of the planets around the sun and the complexities of our solar year, I became aware of what an incredible human accomplishment a calendar is. It is a system based on a body of evidence that can not be compiled by only one person. Data regarding celestial phenomenon must be passed down through generations to produce a body of information large enough to provide insight into the timing of celestial events.

So, for me, the winter solstice is much more than an astronomical event. It calls attention to the wonderful world we live in and the mysterious workings of nature that have brought about that spark of life and the incredible diversity of species that we observe and enjoy. Yet, perhaps more importantly, it reminds me of the amazing human mind and sense of curiosity that pervades every human group and human endeavor.

So, as we look forward to the coming days of light, warmth and hope, we can not only remain confident that the forces of nature will continue, but also that the human spirit will thrive!

Wishing you a happy solstice and a bright new year.

9/11: Winners and Losers

The World Trade Center bombings on 9/11 were a shocking and terrible event. Nearly three thousand people lost their lives, tens of thousands lost their loved ones, hundreds of thousands lost their jobs, and all of us lost our sense of personal and national security.

Yet, four years later, we see that there were both winners and losers in the tragedy of 9/11. Who are the winners? Not just the radical Muslim extremists. There are many winners right here in the United States.

For totalitarians who believe that the government should have unlimited powers in surveillance and intimidation of its citizens, the Patriot Act took care of those pesky civil liberties that we enjoy. The government now has the right to conduct secret searches, based on secret search warrants issued by secret courts. The government can now arrest American citizens and hold them in jail without filing criminal charges. It can suspend the right of habeas corpus. If these procedures are too cumbersome, it can simply authorize its military to conduct wiretaps without benefit of a warrant. Winner: the government; Loser: American citizens.

Defense contractors have, perhaps, been the biggest winners. The government has pulled out the national credit cards and borrowed nearly $400 billion to award contracts for everything from new Humvees to phony news stories. Many of these contracts were awarded without competitive bids. We see no evidence that these mega-corporations such as Halliburton have reduced their profit margin to contribute to the public good. Winner: defense contractors; Loser: American citizens.

Of course, defense contractors are not the only corporations to benefit. Over the past two decades, oil companies have fought for the right to tap publicly-owned oil deposits in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. They have long been denied the bonus of exploiting this last domestic oil field in the country, a public asset that should be held in reserve for national security. They have also been denied the opportunity to place our natural heritage at risk by conducting new offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. No longer. In the name of national security, oil companies will be allowed to drill the last oil reserves controlled by the United States and endanger the environment. Winner: Big Oil; Loser: American citizens.

Among the most politically influential corporations in our country is the pharmaceutical industry. (Just check on their payments to lobbyists and their contributions to politicians’ campaign committees, PACs and favorite charities.) Raising fears of anthrax attacks and bio-terrorism, a new law under consideration exempts pharmaceuticals from virtually any lawsuits arising from vaccines, despite the fact that we already have a reasonable law protecting these companies from any claims except those involving gross negligence. Winner: Pharmaceuticals; Loser: American citizens.

Certainly, the United States needed to take actions in response to 9/11. But, is it sheer coincidence that in response to this tragedy we have awarded billions of dollars to big business and greater power to big government? Most people in our country would not take advantage of others as they experienced a personal tragedy. Unfortunately, some will take any opportunity to increase their wealth or advance their own agenda.