I'm sure you all recall the early days of the NSA Hoovering up all domestic data warrantless wiretapping scandal, when they referred to it as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" and assured us that they were only targeting Al-Qaeda operatives.

Naturally, this turned out to be a lie enhanced duplicity technique, because it turns out they were spying on all of us everyday American citizens. Nobody was off the target list, and we were all potential Al-Qaeda operatives.

Now, there's a big hubbub about some sketchy CIA assassination ring, apparently answering to Cheney himself. Nobody's willing to talk about the nitty-gritty details, but it's enough to have even Nancy "off the table" Pelosi spooked or pissed off enough to start publicly discussing how fucked-up it was, whatever "it" was.

The public justification for this shadowy, super-classified, apparently reprehensible death squad?

They were only targeting Al-Qaeda operatives.

Yeah, okay, I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit. Does anyone seriously doubt that what we'll eventually learn is that they formed a group to assassinate American citizens in the National Interest? Consider this, via TPM:

Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, told TPMmuckraker that because we've been in a state of war against al Qaeda since just after September 11, there would have been no need for a secret CIA program that received special legal authorization...

As for what the program did involve, Cannistraro suggested that it involved Americans as targets, and that it went beyond surveillance, but declined to elaborate. He added that, though Cheney may have directly ordered the CIA to keep Congress in the dark, the veep wasn't acting alone. "The approval was from the president," said Cannistraro.

Hmm, I wonder...

The United States Supreme Court has denied the right of an inmate to pay for a DNA test that could prove he's innocent. He's been in jail for 14 years for a crime he says he did not commit. As Matthew Yglesias posts:

It looks like the Pentagon is continuing on its all-out offensive to keep the Guantanamo Bay prison camp open by trying to put cosmetic touches on a prison set up on inherently unconstitutional grounds: indefinite seizure and gaining intelligence by torture.

WASHINGTON, (AFP) – A Pentagon report has found conditions at the controversial Guantanamo prison in line with the Geneva Conventions, but called for the isolation of some inmates to be eased by allowing them more social contact and recreation.

 Read more…

Say Hello to Overruled. I'm expecting some quality stuff. Take a look at the "Why I blog" post:

Why I Blog
Debbie Dantz worked at an Applebees, a job she desperately needed to take care of her two teenage daughters and a terminally ill father. It was not a high paying job, but because Dantz couldn't afford a car or even a bed to sleep on, she needed work within walking distance of her home and the Applebees fit the bill.
So when Dantz' boss made a pass at her, she didn't quit because she needed the money. She stuck with the job as her manager's behavior became increasingly bizarre and cruel. He ordered all the waitresses to wear skirts, and would regularly lift them up and make crude comments as he looked under them. Sometimes, he would order Dantz to sit in a chair while he quietly circled her, staring at her like a predator. When Dantz complained about this treatment, her manager and her male co-workers threw food at her.

One day, when Dantz arrived at work a paper was shoved into her hands and she was ordered to sign it. The paper contained something called a "binding mandatory arbitration agreement" which said that, if Applebees broke the law, Dantz no longer had the right to hold it accountable in court and instead would be shunted into a privatized, biased justice system. Dantz refused to sign, and was told that until she did, she would be paid nothing but tips—a violation of federal minimum wage laws. Nevertheless, Dantz needed her job, so she didn't quit.

After nearly three years of harassment, abuse and long hours for little or no pay, Dantz finally decided that she'd had enough. She filed suit against her employer—and the court kicked her to the curb. Even though Dantz refused to sign the binding arbitration agreement, the court said that merely by continuing to work for Applebees, she was bound by its terms. Debbie Dantz' employer illegally abused her for almost three years, and Dantz was powerless to hold it accountable.

 Read more…

Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality. ...

U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military. ...

 Read more…

Do not be fooled, amidst all of the election hoopla the fact has remained that the right (wrong) is still totally bat-shit crazy. Conservative columnist Cal Thomas penned in his December 1st column that:

The whole thing is very good.

This goes to the other side of how this nation is changing radically - with a series of programs conceived largely by executive fiat that weakens civil liberties protections and subverts the plain letter of the law. This includes illegal wiretapping of American citizens, indefinite detention of prisoners without charges, and the dehumanizing practice of torture, which is ineffective and deeply dangerous to the lives of our troops, as this senior interrogator in Iraq explains.
...

 Read more…

Crisis:
Now: Suspend the campaign to deal with the crisis
Nov: Suspend the election to deal with the crisis

As Upset the Setup puts it, Don’t act suprised.

[Newberry's got the best perspective and policy, and, unlike some (me) knows finance. So, I urge you to drop by listen, learn, and lend perspective. -- lambert]

At 4:30p Eastern time today, noted economic writer and friend of this blog, Stirling Newberry will be hosting a live chat at Firedoglake. He's encouraging anyone with questions or comments to come by and join the conversation. Take a moment out of your day and stop by; I promise you'll learn something.

Via Democracy Now!

Army Unit to Deploy in October for Domestic Operations

Beginning in October, the Army plans to station an active unit inside the United States for the first time to serve as an on-call federal response in times of emergency. The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent thirty-five of the last sixty months in Iraq, but now the unit is training for domestic operations. The unit will soon be under the day-to-day control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The Army Times reports this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command. The paper says the Army unit may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control. The soldiers are learning to use so-called nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals and crowds.

Fascism! Smell it!

Seeing as how Lambert seems intent on stealing all my post ideas today, I'll post this in case like me, you don't often go to HuffPo. It's worth noting that Larissa used to live in Russia, and knows from Coup. Beyond all the bullshit, she speaks plain truth.

As I see it now, we have but two options and I have long alluded to hoping against hope that one of these options would not be the only one left to a peaceful people. The first and frankly most preferable option is for Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedings against the members of this latest Business Plot.

No time needs to be wasted on hearings as we already now have in writing, formally as presented to Congress, the intentions of this administration to nullify Congressional powers permanently, to alter Judicial powers permanently, and to openly steal public funds using as blackmail the total collapse of the US economy if these powers are not handed over. You do see how this is blackmail, do you not? You do see how this is a manufactured crisis precisely designed to be used as blackmail, do you not?

The other option, the one I have long prayed we would never need to even consider, is a total revolution. But, If Congress won't act in its own self-defense, in the defense of democracy, in defense of us - the people who have elected them to protect us from this very danger - then what is left for us to do? I don't want to see it come down to this, but I fear that it will. Put your party politics aside right now. We are in a crisis so dangerous that should these people succeed in their coup, your party affiliation will no longer matter, your American flag will be a nice collectible item of something that once was, and your version of God will be worshiped in secrecy because your freedoms will be owned by the few.

You are no longer Republicans, Democrats, or any shade of voter. You do not live in a swing state or a solid colored state. You are simply this: an American. That is the only side that matters. So call your members of Congress and demand, no, declare that unless they do their duty to the Constitution and to us, we will move to the streets - not because we want to, but because our founding fathers demanded this duty of each and every citizen in the face of such a domestic enemy. Demand - as is your right - that this bill be voted against and demand - as is your right - that the people plotting this treachery be held to account. We are either a nation of laws or we are no longer a democracy. Pick a side, because there won't be another time, another moment, another chance to be a patriot.

What's interesting is that she got more than one threat from wingnuts to turn her in to DHS or some shit just for writing a blog post. Expect more of that in future.

No one here doubts that the Constitution is officially a piece of toilet paper, I hope. In case there are still a few bitter dead-enders on this point (heh), Glenn reminds us of just how far we've come from "free speech zones." Now, the only point I'll add is that they has been happening to little old Black grandmothers and disabled Latinas and suchlike for a looong time. But Nice, Polite People from MN? Hell no! We're all Niggers now, people! (video below) Pre-emptive Freedumb! Savor the term, you could be next, hippy!

Protesters here in Minneapolis have been targeted by a series of highly intimidating, sweeping police raids across the city, involving teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets. Last night, members of the St. Paul police department and the Ramsey County sheriff's department handcuffed, photographed and detained dozens of people meeting at a public venue to plan a demonstration, charging them with no crime other than "fire code violations," and early this morning, the Sheriff's department sent teams of officers into at least four Minneapolis area homes where suspected protesters were staying.

 Read more…

I don’t like Steny Hoyer. There’s just no way around it. Now he’s conspiring with Jay Rockefeller to force retroactive telecom immunity through Congress, so George Bush and his criminal conspiracy won’t have to answer any questions about violating the Constitution by spying on American citizens without warrants.

Again.

Did I mention I don’t like Steny Hoyer?

This is good to hear, I wish them luck. As SI notes, it's stupid because it just encourages people to make mirror sites. Stupid suits, still too dense to understand how the intertubes operate as they War on Freedom. Lots of livelinks in the original.

Note to Bank: Don't Wage War With the Internets

If you follow the political blogs, you probably know about the Wikileaks case. In a nutshell, last week a district court judge ruled in favor of Swiss Bank Julius Baer and ordered the Wikileaks domain name shut down because a former bank employee allegedly used the site to post proof that the bank is involved in a money laundering scheme. Wired's Threat Level gives an excellent, thorough run-down of the story.

Last night the ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a motion to intervene in that lawsuit.

 Read more…

What follows is a post I wrote some time ago, shortly after Bush's 2nd Inaugural. I thought it might be worth reposting on this particular day, since it includes a comparison of both Lincoln and Truman to Bush, and seeks to discuss political rhetoric and its discontents. I also thought it might be a pleasant respite from our current obsession with the Democratic Presidential primary, as well as offering a frame for contemplating the ruin Bush's second terms has wrecked not only on the country, but on his own likely historical reputation.

Dubya's Dubious Second Inaugural:The Bad Faith Of George W. Bush

Four years ago, at the time of Bush's 1st Inaugural Address, despite the bitterness left behind by the manner in which the 2000 presidential election was decided, despite the "winner's" inability to find a graceful way to acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances that had brought him to the Presidency, or even an ungraceful way, swept up in the grandeur of that peaceful transfer of power without which no democratic republic can long endure, I was able to acknowledge the surprising power of some of Bush's rhetoric, and to feel some hope that he actually meant some tiny fraction of what he was saying.

Nunca mas, as they have had occasion to say in Argentina.

Bush made it easy last Thursday; everything about his second inaugural address, its grandiosity, its simple-minded diction and biblical intimations, the insistent refusal to acknowledge complexity, its wildly overstated and pitifully under-defined ambitions, its ahistorical smugness, struck me as downright preposterous, which will explain my amazement at the credulity with which the speech was received; yes, there were some reservations expressed at the practical implications and applicability of such a pure statement of American idealism, but rather less comment willing to point out that the speech's efficacy as a statement of policy could be measured in inverse proportion to its almost demented insistence that ideas exist in some ethereal space untouched by anything as gritty and unpleasant as a fact.

Instead, once again we were asked to wonder at the poetic eloquence of Michael Gerson's prose, and if we happened to be liberals, admonished not to get too picky about the fathoms-deep divide between Bush's rhetoric and the reality of his policies, lest we peg ourselves, once again, as outside the great and grand ideas upon which our republic stands.

Chris Suellentrop, for instance, writing in Slate, parses the speech to bolster his own praise for it as a wonderful piece of oratory, credits it with announcing a second Bush doctrine, (the first, preemptive war, this second, the peaceful pursuit of democracy everywhere, and nary a hint the two doctrines might contradict one another), then proceeds to question the validity of the speech's central thesis, which strikes Chris as being as simple-minded as the formulation by "some" on the left, that 9/11 was caused by poverty, and then finishes by warning liberals -- well, unlike Mr. Suellentrop, I shall let him speak for himself:

Via Digby:

Delahunt: You said if an opinion was rendered, that would insulate him from any consequences.

[Mike Mukasey, Attorney General of the United States, before the House Judiciary Committee today]: We could not investigate or prosecute somebody for acting in reliance on a justice department opinion.

...

Delahunt: If that opinion was inaccurate and in fact violated a section of US Criminal Code, that reliance is in effect an immunity from any criminal culpability.

MM: Immunity connoted culpability. [Well, is anyone culpable? -scar]

...

Delahunt: I find that a new legal doctrine. The law is the law.

 Read more…

Congress? - Bush don't need no stinkin' Congress.

Watch for King George's proclamation regarding earmarks tonight. Finally (i.e. now that Dems run the Congressional roost), he has had enough of them.

Because our dear Ruler lacks the Line-Item Veto, he's simply going to sign an Executive Order that says, FUCK YOU, Congress - you only write the laws - the government (aka W) is not going to enforce those parts we (aka HE) doesn't agree with.

Vetoing is too messy, I guess. W wouldn't get those parts of the legislation he wants.

Mike McConnell wants to spy on 100% of Internet traffic.

"Americans will have to trust the government not to abuse the authority it must have in order to protect our networks, and yet, historically the government has not proved worthy of that trust."

Here are the parts of this that I don't understand. What do you mean "will have to trust" and "must have"?

Via She with excellent tata holders:

More than a hundred computer chips containing voting machine software were lost or stolen during transit in California this week. Two cardboard shipping tubes containing 174 EPROMs loaded with voting machine software were sent via Federal Express on December 13th from the secretary of state's office in Sacramento to election officials in San Diego County for use in optical-scan machines made by Diebold Election Systems. But on Monday, the two shipping tubes arrived empty."

Avedon asks:

I can't help having a fantasy that brave freedom fighters are trying to prevent the use of these machines by direct action....

It would be nice, and it's a fantasy I share.

It seems that Bush attempted to do both at the same time.

On Friday, President Bush issued a Memorandum of Disapproval on H.R. 1585, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008."

In the Memorandum, the President states he is "pocket vetoing" the legislation. Yet in the same document, the President states he is sending the bill back to the House with objections. So which is it - a pocket veto or a veto?

More importantly, why the transparent attempt to do both?   Read more…

Okay, maybe it's only one cheer.

A provisional cheer at that, although I'm inclined to make that two provisional cheers.

What I'd like to suggest, no doubt to the consternation of most readers, is that Reid's decision to pull the FISA bill Monday evening was pretty much what Reid had in mind the whole time.

What I'm sure of is that the many comments I've read that characterize what happened on the Senate floor on Monday as Reid having been forced to pull the bill by Chris Dodd's threat of a filibuster simply don't match what I saw, via C-Span's live streaming.

Before I proceed, let me make clear that I wish to take nothing from Chris Dodd's role here. He deserves all of the praise he's getting and then some.

His speeches on the Senate floor were magisterial. I've been watching him for more years than most of you and I have never seen him so compelling. And yes, it counts that he left his campaign in Idaho to come back and lead the opposition to a version of the Senate bill that was inadequate to the task of restoring the good sense, the respect for civil liberties and constitutional government, that had fueled the passage of the first FISA legislation in the late 1970s.

As Dodd graciously acknowledges in the video Lambert has posted here, many Democrats contributed to the sense I had, watching the debate on Monday, that I was not looking at a dispirited, disunited, frightened caucus, without a clue about how to oppose the policy of obdurate obstructionism employed so successfully in the past six months by the Bush administration and its enablers in the Republican Senate caucus.

Democrats were on the attack, making compelling, easy-to-understand arguments that have wide-spread appeal among a majority of Americans, and they were ready and able to shoot down the lies and prevarications employed by key Republicans, like Orrin Hatch. Most important, the list of Democratic contributors to this success was long and varied, and included Harry Reid.

You really should go read this post by Scott Horton over at Harper's.

I'll wait.

You know I find it fascinating to read all of these libertarian Republican types (Andrew Sullivan) who are suddenly astonished by the rise of the evangelical whackos and their power. "Where'd these folks come from?" they seem to be asking.

You know who empowered these people? You and your kind, Andy, that's who. It's like these folks haven't been paying attention the last twenty years. You guys enabled these people, in the 1980s and 1990s you avidly courted them. Did you not pay attention to the political history of the last twenty years?

CD updating the update to reflect the latest news: Reid has pulled the bill.

Well, we're into it - a full-throated Senate debate on many of the dearest, in all senses of that word, fundamentals of constitutional government,

The opening, as Lambert has suggested, was a bit confusing.

Dodd gave a passionate analysis of the many strands of this new FISA legislation, meant, mainly on the Democratic side, to correct the excesses of last August's Protect America Act, which more or less gutted the FISA court as a check on the power of the executive branch to secretly ignore the civil liberties of Americans not to be spied upon by their own government.

To talk process for a moment, the thrust of Dodd's first speech was in support of the many and profound reasons why the Senate should not proceed on the matter at hand as long as the Intelligence Committee's version is the basis of the debate and the subsequent voting on the entire issue. In other words, he was arguing against the imposition of cloture, so that the Senate might spend time debating the merits of substituting the Judiciary Bill as the basis for debate and amendment.

It didn't look or sound to me like this was Dodd's attempt to get a genuine filibuster going, and indeed, the vote was lopsided in favor of cloture, all Republicans voting yes, only ten Democrats voting no.

This is not the end of the debate by any means, though, and from what I've seen thus far, do not despair that passage of the Intelligence Committee's version of this new FISA bill is a done deal, including the extending of amnesty to those Telecoms which choose to go along with the administration. Here's why:

Hooray! Congress has now made us 100% safe.

I'm pretty sure we don't have any freedoms left for the terrorists to hate us for.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.

That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user's account be retained for subsequent police inspection.

Campaigned for him even though not old enough to vote for him, she hastens to add.

Well, Mitt Romney gave his "Kennedy" speech on the place of religion in American life and the one thing it wasn't was Kennedy-esque.

How have our mighty constitution and the great founding documents of our democratic republic fallen? Let us count the ways.

ROMNEY: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

That will be the headline of all media discussions of Romney's speech this morning. But what does it mean?

ROMNEY: "Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Yes, that’s right, the sentence means almost nothing, except, of course, the ready implication that "freedom" and being a religious church or synagogue attendee are inextricably linked.

Romney rightly declined to discuss or defend the tenets of the Mormon church, and he allowed that there should be no religious tests for office holders. As did John Kennedy. What a difference though. Here’s Romney.

ROMNEY: There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adam's words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

Here’s how John Kennedy began his famous speech: