Letter back from our Congresswoman:

First of all, I want to wish you happy holidays and a very happy New Year. Thanks to all of you for your feedback and comments to my last email, in which I urged you to sign a petition calling on Congressman James Sensenbrenner Jr., Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Congressman Peter Hoekstra, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, to hold hearings demanding answers about the Bush administration's spying on American citizens. If you haven't signed my petition yet, please join the thousands of other Americans who have signed it already, by going here:

http://www.votelouise.com/DemandHearingsforSpying

But I will not be satisfied just by demanding hearings from my Republican colleagues. I have also submitted a Resolution of Inquiry (H. RES. 644) in the House of Representatives requesting the President and directing the Attorney General to turn over to the House any and all documents relating to the authorization of this secret spying program on American citizens. Here is the text of that resolution:

http://www.votelouise.com/blog/310/time-for-bush-to-turn-over-his-papers-re-spying-on-americans

The issue here is whether the President violated any rule of law. Here is what indicted Representative Tom DeLay said back in 1998, when he came out in support of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, based on the highest standard of the "rule of law":

[T]his nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth. ...

No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country.

Tom DeLay's words are deeply ironic, but also illuminating for all of us at a time when we are reading story after story about government spying on American citizens. These stories raise questions about whether the President of the United States violated any rule of law under the Foreign Intelligence Service Act and the United States Constitution by authorizing domestic surveillance over American citizens without first obtaining court-approved warrants.

That is why the House of Representatives must step up and do its part to hold this Administration accountable for its actions and demand answers by conducting thorough and dignified hearings concerning spying on Americans. So, if you have not signed my petition yet, please sign it today and pass it on:

http://www.votelouise.com/DemandHearingsforSpying

Let's not let up on this issue of spying on our own citizens. I am doing everything I can to do my part as an elected official in the U. S. Congress to seek answers and accountability from this Administration. That is why I submitted the Resolution of Inquiry, which I will urge all of my colleagues in the House to support so that we can get all the facts behind this spying program. Meanwhile, if you have any other ideas, feedback, or suggestions on how we can keep focus on this very important issue in Congress, and maintain this as one of the major topics in our national political discourse going into 2006, please post them on my web journal by going here:

http://www.votelouise.com/blog

Thanks again for your support, passion, and all of your work to restore faith in our democracy.

In Solidarity,

Congresswoman


Louise M. Slaughter

The New York Times
December 29, 2005
Spy Agency Removes Illegal Tracking Files
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

By The Associated Press The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most files of that type.

The files, known as cookies, disappeared after a privacy activist complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week. Agency officials acknowledged yesterday that they had made a mistake.

Nonetheless, the issue raised questions about privacy at the agency, which is on the defensive over reports of an eavesdropping program.

"Considering the surveillance power the N.S.A. has, cookies are not exactly a major concern," said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington. "But it does show a general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy."

Until Tuesday, the N.S.A. site created two cookie files that do not expire until 2035.

Don Weber, an agency spokesman, said in a statement yesterday that the use of the so-called persistent cookies resulted from a recent software upgrade.

Normally, Mr. Weber said, the site uses temporary cookies that are automatically deleted when users close their Web browsers, which is legally permissible. But he said the software in use was shipped with the persistent cookies turned on.

"After being tipped to the issue, we immediately disabled the cookies," Mr. Weber said.

Cookies are widely used at commercial Web sites and can make Internet browsing more convenient by letting sites remember user preferences. For example, visitors would not have to repeatedly enter passwords at sites that require them.

Privacy advocates point out that cookies can also track Web surfing, even if no personal information is collected.

In a 2003 memorandum, the Office of Management and Budget at the White House prohibited federal agencies from using persistent cookies - those that are not automatically deleted right away - unless there is a "compelling need."

A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy.

Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who had drafted an earlier version of the cookie guidelines, said that clear notice was a must, and that "vague assertions of national security, such as exist in the N.S.A. policy, are not sufficient."

Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the N.S.A. cookies, said mistakes happen, "but in any case, it's illegal."

Richard M. Smith, a security consultant in Cambridge, Mass., questioned whether persistent cookies would even be of much use to the security agency. They are great for news sites and others with repeat visitors, Mr. Smith said, but the agency's site does not appear to have enough fresh content to warrant more than occasional visits.

The government first issued strict rules on cookies in 2000 after disclosures that the White House drug policy office had used them to track computer users viewing its online antidrug advertising. Even a year later, a Congressional study found 300 cookies still on the Web sites of 23 agencies.

In 2002, the C.I.A. removed cookies it had inadvertently placed at one of its sites after Mr. Brandt called it to the agency's attention.

Chiefs Demoted in Pentagon Succession Line - Los Angeles Times: "WASHINGTON -- The three military service chiefs have been dropped in the Bush administration's doomsday line of Pentagon succession, pushed beneath three civilian undersecretaries in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's inner circle.

A little-noticed holiday week executive order from President Bush moved the Pentagon's intelligence chief to the No. 3 spot in the succession hierarchy behind Rumsfeld. The second spot would be the deputy secretary of defense, but that position currently is vacant. The Army chief, which long held the No. 3 spot, was dropped to sixth. "

Boing Boing: Experiment to see if your mail is being tapped by the gov't: "Experiment to see if your mail is being tapped by the gov't
Richard M. Smith of ComputerBytesMan has come up with a 'quick and easy method to see if one's email messages are being read by someone else.'"

U.S. Spying Is Much Wider, Some Suspect - Los Angeles Times: "President Bush has acknowledged that several hundred targeted Americans were wiretapped without warrants under the National Security Agency's domestic spying program, and now some U.S. officials and outside experts say they suspect that the government is engaged in a far broader U.S. surveillance operation."

...

"It's really obvious to me that it's a look-at-everything type program," said cryptography expert Bruce Schneier, who has written several books about security."

...

"One former senior Pentagon official who has overseen such "data mining" said he also believed the NSA was probably conducting such wholesale surveillance."

Military Confirms Surge in Airstrikes: "U.S. airstrikes in Iraq have surged this fall, jumping to nearly five times the average monthly rate earlier in the year, according to U.S. military figures."

"Until the end of August, U.S. warplanes were conducting about 25 strikes a month. The number rose to 62 in September, then to 122 in October and 120 in November."

Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Defending Freedom in a Digital World."

Left I on the News:

"Last week, the U.S. government announced it would not let a team from Cuba play in the World Baseball Classic, because Cuba would be 'making money' from the tournament in violation of U.S. laws."

Today, the Cuban Baseball Federation responds:

Money is not the motive adduced by the OFAC for our interest in competing. We are a federation of a modest but dignified country; our only proposal is to cooperate so that baseball can continue to develop and attain its reinsertion in the Olympic Program in the near future. We have never competed for money.

With the objective of offering options, the Cuban Baseball Federation would be disposed to the money corresponding to its participation in the Classic to be destined to the victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans."

Oakland Tribune - Op-Ed:

"In America today, Big Brother is watching.

He's watching because President Bush told him to. Shortly after 9/11, Bush secretly authorized warrantless wiretaps on U.S. citizens making or receiving international calls and e-mails.

When it comes to fighting terror, Bush is totalitarian ? remember, you're either with us or against us. Trust me to get it right, he says. Debate on the law is not only not needed, it's evil."

...

We think it's time for Congress to heed the warning of George Orwell.

To that end, we're asking for your help: Mail us or drop off your tattered copies of "1984." When we get 537 of them, we'll send them to every member of the House of Representatives and Senate and to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"Feel free to inscribe the book with a note, reminding these fine people that we Americans take the threat to our liberties seriously. Remind Congress that it makes no sense to fight a war for democracy in a foreign land while allowing our democratic principles to erode at home."

...

"Bring or mail your books to the Oakland Tribune, 401 13th St., Oakland CA 94612. Doors are open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m."

I've decided to make it required reading for my epistemology/conspiracy theory seminar. I know you've both taught it before -- any helpful sources or links?

USNews.com: Nation and World: EXCLUSIVE: Nuclear Monitoring of Muslims Done Without Search Warrants (12/22/05): "the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, U.S. News has learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts."

Police Infiltrate Protests, Videotapes Show - New York Times: "Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war, bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show."

"The officers hoist protest signs. They hold flowers with mourners. They ride in bicycle events. At the vigil for the cyclist, an officer in biking gear wore a button that said, "I am a shameless agitator." She also carried a camera and videotaped the roughly 15 people present."

...

"Beyond collecting information, some of the undercover officers or their associates are seen on the tape having influence on events. At a demonstration last year during the Republican National Convention, the sham arrest of a man secretly working with the police led to a bruising confrontation between officers in riot gear and bystanders."

...

"Provided with images from the tape, the Police Department's chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, did not dispute that they showed officers at work but said that disguised officers had always attended such gatherings - not to investigate political activities but to keep order and protect free speech."

Wal-Mart Workers Win Suit - Los Angeles Times: "The world's largest retailer was ordered to pay $57 million in general damages and $115 million in punitive damages to employees for violating a 2001 state law that requires employers to provide 30-minute unpaid lunch breaks to employees who work at least six hours in a shift."

Rant against the so-called War on Christmas

The Raw Story | Conyers, others introduce resolution demanding surveillance probe: "John Conyers, Jr., (D - MI) ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and 26 other Congressmen today submitted a resolution of inquiry into warrantless wiretapping of citizens on U.S. soil.

The resolution would demand that Attorney General Gonzales turn over documents believed to be in his possession authorizing the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance. It would also request documents detailing any legal recommendations regarding the order."

Attytood: What's on Dick Cheney's iPod: "Working passengers began lining up their laptops to share the power from a couple of working outlets particularly the reporters who urgently needed to prepare their articles to transmit during a quick refueling stop in England.

But when Cheney said his iPod needed to be recharged, it took precedence above all else and dominated one precious outlet for several hours. The vice president's press staff intervened so a reporter could use the outlet for 15 minutes to charge a dead laptop, but then the digital music device was plugged back in."

If we give reasons then the terrorists have already won...

"'One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

' 'For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap,' said the official. 'They couldn't dream one up.' '"

Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law

USC
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war
Release date: 2005-03-17

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

And:

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1809
§ 1809. Criminal sanctions

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally?
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

From:
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I

SUBCHAPTER I?ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

Cornell's Legal Information Institute

PhotoChains - IMPEACH: "IMPEACH"---This link is dead (Now fixed). Here's another.

"Venezuela has given the world's biggest oil company, ExxonMobil, until the end of this year to enter a joint venture with the state.

Failure to do so will almost certainly result in Exxon losing its oil field concessions in the country.

Venezuela's socialist government has now signed new agreements with almost all foreign petroleum companies. After months of pressure from left- wing leader Hugo Chavez most foreign oil firms working there have caved in. They have agreed to hand over a controlling stake of their oil interests to the Venezuelan state. This means that Venezuela, which has the world's largest petroleum reserves, now calls the shots in what the foreign guests can and cannot do. "

The Hidden State Steps Forward: "With Bush's defense of his wiretapping, the hidden state has stepped into the open. The deeper challenge Bush has thrown down, therefore, is whether the country wants to embrace the new form of government he is creating by executive fiat or to continue with the old constitutional form. He is now in effect saying, 'Yes, I am above the law--I am the law, which is nothing more than what I and my hired lawyers say it is--and if you don't like it, I dare you to do something about it.'"

La loi, c'est moi.

I have a little thing for Press Gaggles & Briefings...Especially ones where the Press Secretary actually faces some tough questions and twists and contorts in all sorts of directions. A few highlights from today's:

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan:

"Helen Thomas

Q The President has publicly acknowledged that we went to war under false information, mistaken information. Why does he insist on staying there if we were there falsely, and continue to kill Iraqis?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, maybe you missed some of his recent speeches and his remarks, but the President said it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power --

Q And a right decision to move in and to tell the people, the American people, that it was all a mistake, and stay there?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think he said that. He said that Saddam Hussein was a destabilizing force in a dangerous region of the world --

Q That isn't true. We had a choke-hold on him.

MR. McCLELLAN: It is true. He was a threat. And the threat has been removed.

Q We had sanctions, we had satellites, we were bombing.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's talk about why it's so important, what we're working to accomplish in Iraq --

Q I want to know why we're still there killing people, when we went in by mistake.

MR. McCLELLAN: We are liberating people and freeing people to live in a democracy. And why we're still there --

Q Do you think we're spreading democracy when you spy and put out disinformation and do all the things that -- secret prisons, and torture?

MR. McCLELLAN: I reject your characterizations wholly. I reject your characterizations wholly. The United States is helping to advance freedom in a dangerous region of the world.

Q -- recognize this kind of --

MR. McCLELLAN: For too long we thought we had stability by ignoring freedom in the Middle East. Well, we showed -- we saw on September 11th --

Q -- 30,000 plus?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, we can have a debate, or you can let me respond to your questions. I think this is an important subject for the American people to talk about. By advancing freedom and democracy in the Middle East we're helping to protect our own security. It's a dangerous region --

Q By killing people in their own country?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I reject that. We're liberating and freeing people and we're targeting the enemy. We're killing the terrorists and we're going after the Saddam loyalists.

Q The President said 30,000, more or less.

MR. McCLELLAN: And you know who is responsible for most of that? It's the terrorists and the Saddam loyalists who want to turn back to the past.

Q We didn't kill anybody there?

MR. McCLELLAN: Our military goes out of the way to minimize civilian casualties. They target the enemy --

Q You admit they kill?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've got a lot of technology that we can use to target the enemy without going after -- without collateral damage of civilians. And that's what our military does.

Q Are you kidding?

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, I'm going to stand up for our military. Our military goes out of the way to protect civilians. In fact --

Q Fallujah, we didn't kill any civilians?

MR. McCLELLAN: We freed some 25 million people in Iraq that were living under a brutal regime.

Go ahead.

A discursis on the definition of 'congressional oversight' that turns into a Abbot and Costello routine

Q Congress defines oversight as "the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations, to have access to records or materials, or to issue subpoenas or testimony from the executive." Which of these powers were members of Congress granted with regard to the NSA surveillance program?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as you just pointed out, Congress is an independent branch of government, and they're elected by their constituents. We briefed and informed members of Congress about this program going back to 2001; more than a dozen times since then we've briefed members of Congress --

Q But briefing isn't power to investigate or issue subpoenas to ask questions. And I'm asking you, which of the powers of oversight were they granted?

MR. McCLELLAN: Congress is an independent branch of government. That's what I just pointed out, Jessica.

Q Which has the right to check the functions of the executive. And these are --

MR. McCLELLAN: They have an oversight role, that's

right.

Q Okay, so in what way --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why we thought it was important to brief members of Congress about this vital tool that we're using to save lives and to protect the American people, and why we talked to them about how it is limited in nature and limited in scope.

Q But as you know, members of Congress who were briefed said that they were informed -- yes, briefed, but given absolutely no recourse to formally object, to push back and say, this is not acceptable.

MR. McCLELLAN: They're an independent branch of government.

Q So in what way were they given oversight?

MR. McCLELLAN: They were briefed. And we believe it's important to brief members of Congress, the relevant leaders --

Q Would you also say they were given full oversight?

MR. McCLELLAN: They're an independent branch of government. Yes, they have --

Q Were they given oversight?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, they have oversight roles to play.

Q So they have oversight. So, in what way could they have acted on that oversight?

MR. McCLELLAN: You should ask members of Congress that question.

Last: Lies lies lies, yeah

Q Scott, in April of 2004, President Bush delivered remarks on the Patriot Act, and he said at that time, "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it require -- 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." Was the President being completely forthcoming when he made that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think he was talking about in the context of the Patriot Act.

Q And in terms of the American people, though, when he says "nothing has changed" --

MR. McCLELLAN: I would have to look back at the remarks there, but you're clearly talking about it in the context, as you pointed out, of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is another vital tool. That's why the Senate needs to move forward and get that reauthorized now. We cannot let that expire -- not for a single moment, because the terrorist threat is not going to expire. Those tools have helped us disrupt plots and prevent attacks and break up terrorist cells. We need those tools for our law enforcement and intelligence community. And we urge the Senate to stop the delaying tactics by the minority of senators, to stop their delaying tactics, to stop filibustering, stop blocking this legislation and get it passed.

Q So you don't see it as misleading in any way when the President says, "nothing has changed"? "

Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest: "A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources."

F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show - New York Times: "One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a 'Vegan Community Project.' Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's 'semi-communistic ideology.' A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."

Freedom of Information

ACLU uncovered documents on FBI monitoring of "domestic terrorists," including Catholic Workers Group, Ruckus, Direct Action, and PETA.

Word of the Day:

Führerprinzip

A speech Bush gave in Buffalo, April 2004

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security: "there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Billy Bragg got a transit strike for his B-day present today.

Excerpt from Klaus Guenther, "World Citizens between Freedom and Security," Constellations, v. 12, no.3, 2005.

"While the market state withdraws from the internal space of consumer freedom
and largely leaves global economic competition to itself--since any legal regulation
is exclusively measured by whether it expands or constricts the space of
options, raises or minimizes transaction costs--the opposite is the case for the
realms in which threats to this internal space grow. These are the dysfunctional
side-effects described above: migratory movements, organized crime, internal
malfunctions of the economic system, as well as, most recently, international
terrorism. In addition, consumerist freedom, like any increase of freedom, has its
threatening dark side: increasing individualization, the dissolution of social ties
and traditions, the risk of failing in economic competition and thus becoming one
of modernization and globalization'€™s losers. It is probably out of the experience
of these risks that there develops a massive fear of crime, which bundles together
the fears of a multi-option society. The other, with his highly individualized
multiplicity of options, becomes a security risk. Here is where the security state
comes in. The economic reforms in the United States under Ronald Reagan and in
Britain under Margaret Thatcher were accompanied by a massive tightening of
criminal and penal law. The liberation of the economy from the state rested on a
simultaneous restriction of traditional civil rights, which was nevertheless
asserted as 'freedom through the state'€“ namely, as protection of consumerist
freedom from threats from third parties. These third parties are situated outside
the deregulated internal space, and thus excluded in any case, or excluded on the
basis of their lack of success in marketing their labor power. From the internal
perspective of the protected space of the multi-option society, illegal immigrants
are in a way the exemplary figure of what one must protect oneself against: like
free-riders of the '€œprisoner'™s dilemma'� central for the legitimation of the marketstate,
they want to gain illegitimate access to the space of security and freedom, to
enjoy its advantages without having to share its costs. Since it has to do only with
these unauthorized gatecrashers, the demands of constitutional criminal and
police law can sink without the connected restrictions on freedom being experienced
by the majority as a threat."

So, will Domestic Spying merely be absorbed into the logic of the Security State?

This has Wolin's discussion of Reagan's executive privilege (Presence of the Past, Ch2) written all over it.

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Defiant Bush defends wiretapping powers
Tuesday December 20, 2005

George Bush claimed yesterday that he had the constitutional authority to order phone taps on US citizens without court approval, but denied he was seeking "unchecked power".

The president went on the offensive in a battle with Congress over the balance of power, arguing that bold executive action was needed to keep Americans safe. He scolded the Senate for failing to renew anti-terrorist legislation, the "patriot act", and fiercely defended his authorisation of a secret eavesdropping programme after the September 11 attacks.

Headline of Le Monde Tuesday
Le Monde.fr : A la Une

All about defensiveness of the White House on surveillance.

"Les terroristes vont continuer à avoir le pouvoir des lâches en commettant des attentats et en recrutant des candidats à l'attentat-suicide. Vous pourrez continuer d'en voir les résultats sinistres au journal du soir. Ceci prouve que la guerre est difficile, cela ne veut pas dire que nous sommes en train de perdre. Derrière les images de chaos que les terroristes créent pour les caméras, nous faisons des progrès réguliers avec un objectif clair en vue."

Vereinigte Staaten: Kongreß will Abhöraktion untersuchen - FAZ.NET - Politik


19. Dezember 2005 Die Entscheidung Präsident Bushs, amerikanische Staatsbürger im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus durch den Nachrichtendienst NSA überwachen zu lassen, soll nach dem Willen von führenden Republikanern und Demokraten vom Kongreß untersucht werden. Unter anderem forderte der demokratische Minderheitenführer im Senat, Harry Reid, eine Untersuchung der Abhöraktionen, die Bush nach den Terroranschlägen vom 11. September 2001 für internationale Telefongespräche und elektronische Postsendungen terrorverdächtiger Personen angeordnet hatte, ohne daß vorher die sonst übliche richterliche Genehmigung eingeholt wurde. Im Repräsentantenhaus forderten führende Demokraten den republikanischen Sprecher Dennis Hastert auf, eine überparteiliche Untersuchungskommission einzusetzen.

"The fat's in the fire," Mr. Specter said. "This is going to be a big, big issue. There's a lot of indignation across the country, from what I see."

Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence:

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Thanks, Scott.

The President confirmed the existence of a highly classified program on Saturday. The program remains highly classified; there are many operational aspects of the program that have still not been disclosed and we want to protect that because those aspects of the program are very, very important to protect the national security of this country."

"The President has authorized a program to engage in electronic surveillance of a particular kind, and this would be the intercepts of contents of communications where one of the -- one party to the communication is outside the United States."

"Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence."

"I might also add that we also believe the President has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as Commander-in-Chief, to engage in this kind of activity. Signals intelligence has been a fundamental aspect of waging war since the Civil War, where we intercepted telegraphs, obviously, during the world wars, as we intercepted telegrams in and out of the United States."

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. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

Q And who determined that these targets were al Qaeda? Did you wiretap them?

GENERAL HAYDEN: The judgment is made by the operational work force at the National Security Agency using the information available to them at the time, and the standard that they apply -- and it's a two-person standard that must be signed off by a shift supervisor, and carefully recorded as to what created the operational imperative to cover any target, but particularly with regard to those inside the United States.

Q So a shift supervisor is now making decisions that a FISA judge would normally make? I just want to make sure I understand. Is that what you're saying?

GENERAL HAYDEN: What we're trying to do is to use the approach we have used globally against al Qaeda, the operational necessity to cover targets. And the reason I emphasize that this is done at the operational level is to remove any question in your mind that this is in any way politically influenced. This is done to chase those who would do harm to the United States.

Sirotablog: "So let's see - what happens when a President gets caught breaking the law, then publicly says he's going to continue breaking the law? Well, in ages past where serious journalism ruled the day, it meant serious media scrutiny (think Watergate) and investigation. Today, it means just another lazy, dishonest he-said/she-said story, as if it doesn't even matter.

Here's the interchange between NBC's Katie Couric and Tim Russert from this morning:

COURIC: Is this going to be a case of a debate by legal analysts and constitutional scholars versus Americans, who say civil liberties are important, but we don't want another September 11?

RUSSERT: Exactly right.

This is it, baby - the penultimate example of American journalism as state-run propaganda machine. In one fell swoop, one of the largest media organizations in the world used one of its most watched television shows to boil down an extraordinary case of illegal presidential abuse of power into just another petty partisan squabble. And in the process, claiming without one shred of evidence that the only people who care that the president illegally trampled the constitution are 'analysts and scholars,' not the American people who 'don't want another September 11' - an assertion that also dishonestly portrays respect for the law as in direct opposition to national security. "

AlterNet: MediaCulture: Spying and the Public's Right to Know: "Spying and the Public's Right to Know

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted December 19, 2005.

The New York Times doesn't have a good explanation for why it waited until after the 2004 election to print a devastating report against the White House."

Eschaton: "John Lewis:


U.S. Rep. John Lewis said Monday in a radio interview that President Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in authorizing spying on Americans.

The Democratic senator from Georgia told WAOK-AM he would sign a bill of impeachment if one was drawn up and that the House of Representatives should consider such a move.

Lewis is among several Democrats who have voiced discontent with Sunday night's television speech, where Bush asked Americans to continue to support the Iraq War. Lewis is the first major House figure to suggest impeaching Bush.

'Its a very serious charge, but he violated the law,' said Lewis, a former civil rights leader. 'The president should abide by the law. He deliberately, systematically violated the law. He is not King, he is president.'"

t r u t h o u t - Evo Morales Elected Bolivian President in Landslide Victory: " According to exit polls, socialist Evo Morales received 51 percent of the votes in Bolivia's December 18th presidential election, enough to secure his victory. Right-wing candidate Jorge Quiroga admitted defeat with 32 percent of the votes."

firedoglake: "Jonathan Alter, Newsweek:

[O]n December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president'’s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference.

(snip)

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story -- which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year -- because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.' But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing 'all necessary force� in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism."