Now that Gen. Hayden has been confirmed as the next CIA director, let's take a look into our future.

We can assume the NSA's version of TIA will find a new home at the CIA.  For the sake of argument, let's assume everyone involved in this program is committed to the rule of law and seriously interested in protecting America from threats.

Even if that is all true, we still have a problem.  How do you demonstrate the program's value to the people who pay for it without sharing classified information?  It turns out, Ronald Reagan had a solution to that sort of problem; he called it "trust but verify."   We can apply that approach to solve this impasse while meeting the legitimate needs of all the stakeholders.  Here's the proposed test:

President Bush defended his NSA data mining program by saying, "We are not mining through the personal lives of millions of innnocent Americans."

I believe he is telling the truth.

For starters, at least 16 million American children are too young to use telephones. We also know that Qwest refused to give their records to the NSA.  That accounts for another 14 million Americans.  So at least ten percent of Americans were not included in this round of data mining. Of course, that raises an important question...

What about the rest of us?

Unfortunately, at least 200 million Americans probably did have their personal information examined by the NSA.   When you consider this program has been around for a few years, it is likely they looked at a trillion individual calling records.

Many reports about the program suggest the only information provided was phone numbers.  However, a class action lawsuit already filed indicates there was more going on.  In addition to the number of origin and the number called, the records also included date, time, and duration of calls.  Obviously, the records are being subjected to some sort of social network analysis.

Bill Frist doesn't think much of the separation of powers.  The courts, of course, are optional (though best to make sure they're under full control), and the legislature, well, it doesn't have that much to do, what with President Cuckoo Bananas in charge.

Today on Face the Nation Dr. Catkiller explained once again that Bush's warrantless wiretapping was perfectly legal and constitutional (never mind what's written in FISA), and, of course, that that suggests that there is no need whatsoever to write new laws.

From the transcript (pdf format):

Sen. FRIST: Does it have to be thrown over the courts, going back to your question, I don't think so, I personally don't think so.

SCHIEFFER: You don't think that the court needs to issue a court order before they do that?

Sen. FRIST: No.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think the law needs to be rewritten? I mean, you say you're going to look into it.

Sen. FRIST: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: What's your feeling? Is it your sense that it probably is going to have to be rewritten?

Sen. FRIST: I can't really answer that now. I don't think that it does need to be rewritten, but we are holding hearings in the Judiciary Committee right now. They've already begun under Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy. They're looking at whether we do need to put more statutory discipline around that. And we have not been able to answer that yet.

SCHIEFFER: OK.

Okay indeed.

Clearly Pat Roberts's shocking moment of leaving the reservation (which, as Think Progress has noted, is already proving to be short-lived) has caused the Busheviki to put out the loyalists to re-establish the Talking Points.

And there is no bigger Yes Man than Bill Frist, who owes his entire past, present, and future career (that is as a Big Man within the GOP) to Unka Karl.

-- Stu

I served in the United States Air Force's "Electronic Security Command" in the early 80's. This was during the years immediately following Congress establishing restraints on U.S. surveillance practices through FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). This is a key point that needs to be made clear to the American people. FISA did not give the administration new power. It was designed by Congress to restrain power and provide for oversight by the courts.

Why FISA Was Born

The need for FISA arose from administration misconduct, including the tapping of phones of political opponents. The Supreme Court and Congress clearly stated that wire-tapping of American phones without a warrant is a serious breach of the 4th amendment of the Constitution. Each used the power granted to them in the Constitution to restrain and oversee the executive branch.

Bush Arguments Are Ridiculous

President Bush's argument that FISA can be ignored because Congress authorized him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq is, as lawyers love to say, completely without merit. His claims that technology has changed so much since FISA was written in 1978, and that he needed to act faster that FISA would allow are also spurious. FISA allows immediate capture of electronic communications, as soon as an intelligence agency determines it needs to be monitored. Within 72-hours after interception, the agency must go to the FISA court and ask for a warrant. I believe therefore that it was not a delay in the ability to eavesdrop that prompted the President to abandon FISA, it was a desire to keep the American targets of surveillance secret, even from the trustworthy and super-secret FISA Court.

Alberto Gonzalez will be the leadoff witness for the NSA hearings starting tomorrow, and, as a long time Bush loyalist and knee-jerk defender of Bush's extra-constitutional assertions of Presdiential power (from back in the days of the "torture memo"), he can be expected to spout Administration talking points about how the NSA  is only targeting the phone calls of Al Qaeda operatives:

Two disturbing stories hit the papers today which together illustrate one of the most alarming characteristics of the Bush administration - its propensity to intimidate and silence government employees who oppose the preconceived "party line."  

The first story is with respect to a NASA scientist who states that Bush political appointees have tried to keep him from openly discussing the dangers of global warming.  They even tried to keep him from publicly disclosing NASA data showing that the year 2005 was the warmest year on planet earth in at least a century!

I've been biting my tongue about the Bush Regime's secret NSA wiretapping / eavesdropping scandal. I wanted to let the ramifications sink in... to soak in to the cockles of my grey matter and see what stewed to the top. Usually an act as blatant as this doesn't take this much time to stew. However, once I grasped the enormity of this story... I had to wait for the anger to subside before I could process the emotions in to words.

There is an interesting article in the San Jose Mercury news this morning about Stanford Professor Larry Diamond, who is one of the plaintiffs in the ACLU Lawsuit against Bush for the illegal, warrantless NSA wiretapping.  It is worth reading, but I wanted to excerpt a few paragraphs, because Diamond states his position quite eloquently, I think:

Every day on the Stanford University campus, Larry Diamond teaches his students that the president of the United States is not above the law.

Which is why Diamond decided to sue President Bush when he learned that the president had authorized spying on Americans without consent of Congress or the courts. Diamond believes he is among the targets of surveillance.

"I'm disturbed,'' said Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution [sic!] who has studied and taught democracy for more than 30 years. He is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union suit against Bush, the National Security Agency and the heads of other major agencies. "I'm not afraid. I don't feel that I'm in danger. I don't expect retribution.''

[More below the flip]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

A week ago Sunday, Atrios posted a link to an editorial in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that read, in part:

The White House needs to tell the Pentagon promptly to destroy the records of protesters as required, within three months. It also needs promptly to tell the NSA to return to following the rules, to get the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before monitoring Americans' communications. The idea that all of this is being done to us in the name of national security doesn't wash; that is the language of a police state. Those are the unacceptable actions of a police state.

[emphasis mine]

Finding similarities between the Bush administration's post-9/11 rhetoric and that of 20th Century police states seemed like an all-too-easy challenge (you can start, of course, with the very decision to name the new domestic security office the "Department of Homeland Security"), so I thought I would give it a go.

I got a letter from Howard Dean today.  You probably did, too.  Read it, then take the recommended action.

The Bush Administration has been notoriously reluctant to comply with FOIA requests from citizens, organizations, professionals, journalists, and, of course, Democrats.

Nevertheless, this time, I think many might join the effort to uncover just what has been happening in the country since Bush began domestic spying.

Here's part of Dean's appeal, and a handy-dandy link:

I have asked our General Counsel to draft a Freedom of Information Act request for the relevant legal opinions and memos written by that office. Since the program's existence is no longer a secret, these memos should be released -- Americans deserve to know exactly what authority this administration believes it has.

You can help pressure the administration to release these documents by signing on to our Freedom of Information Act request in the next 48 hours.

In his appeal, Dean uses a bi-partisan strategy:

Even Bob Barr, who was one of the most conservative members of Congress and the first member to file articles of impeachment against President Clinton, said:

"What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order."

We need to know whether George Bush went beyond the limits of the law -- and whether he and his administration believe that there are any limits at all. Please join this important request.

Cross posted on Daily Kos, My Left Wing, Booman Tribune

Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 08:25:30 AM PDT
My door is wide open. I'm waiting. I'm ready and I'm not scared.

I call Europe all the time. I email Europe all the time. I guess this might make me an enemy of the state.

I'm only scared of a few things. I'm scared that still the American people seem brain dead.

I'm scared that still plenty of Americans think George Bush is a good president.

I'm scared that still the Democrats are making nice with a tyrant.