NSA Wiretaps Ruled Illegal

The Bush Administration's war against the American people took another blow Thursday when a Federal judge, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit, ruled that the NSA's warrantless surveillance of American citizens is un-Constitutional. Republicans are aghast that a terrorist sympathizer could have wound up on a Federal bench without anyone realizing it. Okay, so they haven't gone that far yet. But they're beginning to ramp up the tired old “activist judges” argument. They haven't come right out and called Taylor that just yet, but they're already pointing out that she was appointed by President Jimmy Carter (a godless Democrat if they've ever seen one), as if that's all the damning evidence that's needed.

“There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” Taylor said in finding that the administration's wiretapping violates an array of constitutional rights and a 1978 law requiring court warrants for electronic surveillance related to terrorism or espionage. She granted the American Civil Liberties Union's request for a nationwide injunction halting the surveillance (which President Bush secretly authorized shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks). The president acknowledged the program's existence only after it was disclosed by the New York Times in December.

Bush said he had ordered the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and e-mails between Americans and suspected members and supporters of al Qaeda overseas. The president claimed authority under his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, but most specifically under a post-Sept. 11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force in Afghanistan -- an assertion that Taylor said was unfounded.

“It was never the intent of the Framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” Taylor wrote in the decision. “The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another.”

The government argued that the program is well within the president’s authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets. Well, that should make us all feel better, right? I mean, it would compromise national security to prove to us that it's legal, so we'll just have to trust them. After all, it's not like they've done anything to make us mistrust them before, right?

The Justice Department said it is appealing the ruling. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, old “torture is legal” himself, said at a news conference in Washington, “We’re going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue,” and “We’ve had numerous statements by leaders of the intelligence community about the effectiveness of the program in protecting America.”

Catch phrase alert; “protecting America.” Well, no one is debating the effectiveness of the program. I'm sure it's mighty convenient for the government to be able to listen in on whomever it pleases whenever it pleases, without having to go through the bother of securing a warrant or explain to anyone why they want to listen in on us. Surely somewhere within the millions of phone calls the government monitors, something suspicious is bound to show up. If it does, by God, they'll catch it, and they'll continue to protect America.

What is being debated here is the legality and Constitutionality of the program, not the effectiveness of the program. That's what's inconveniencing the NSA, the Justice Department and the Bush Administration here. Quaint ideas like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration “couldn’t disagree more with this ruling. The program is carefully administered and only targets international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist.”

My question here is this; who exactly is carefully administering this program? The Bush Administration has thumbed its nose at Congressional oversight, and has, besides, largely enjoyed a rumber-stamping of everything it has wanted to do by a Republican controlled Congress. Does this mean that the NSA is over-seeing itself? You know. That is literally what he's saying. The only oversight Congress has exercised is in the fact that they were aware of the program.

Oh, wait. I get it. We're back to the “trust us” argument. They wouldn't do anything wrong.

The basic problem in Snow's statement is the whole redirection thing again. The gist of it is the phrase “suspected al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist.” See, that makes it sounds like they're only listening in on Osama and his buddies, not Americans citizens in general. Yet the NSA cannot, and will not, explain its database of millions of phone numbers. Ooops! That's embarassing.

This gets down the very core of this argument. Without warrants, the NSA doesn't even need to have probable cause to listen in to your phone calls. If they decide you are “a person of interest,” for whatever reason, King George has already given them permission to monitor everything you do or say. The issue here is whether or not the President has the Constitutional authority to do that.

“Those who herald this decision simply do not understand the world we live in,” President Bush said (apparently without illiciting laughter). Bush should be commended that he could say this with a straight face, since, well, we're talking about the boy king here.

Again, we come back to the “trust us” argument. We simple citizens couldn't possibly understand the complexities of the world we live in. So we should just allow King George and his Neo-Conservative buddies to do as they please. Besides, I'm sure that later we can launder the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and probably even get out the stains once they're finished wiping their butts with them.

“This country is at war,” Bush said (ever notice he reminds us of that whenever we question him on anything?). “We must give those whose job it is to protect us the tools they need. I strongly disagree with the decision. I believe our appeal will be upheld. The American people expect us to protect them so I put this program in place. If Al Quaeda is calling into the United States we want to know what it is saying.”

Well, I think we all would like to know what Al Quaeda is up to.

“No one is against wiretapping suspected terrorists,” Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said. “The question is how to bring this program within the law.”

Republican leaders, meanwhile, urged the White House to fight for the program in court. And no doubt they're prepared to use every catch phrase at their disposal to do so.

“Terrorists are the real threat to our constitutional and democratic freedoms, not the law-enforcement and intelligence tools used to keep America safe,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said in a statement. “We need to strengthen, not weaken, our ability to foil terrorist plots before they can do us harm.”

After all, we are a nation at war. They're protecting America. They're targeting Al Quaeda and affiliated terrorists. Us ungrateful wretches should be ashamed of ourselves for denying them the tools they need to fight terrorists and protect America at a time when we're a nation at war. You know. Tools such as warrantless wiretaps that ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and support the un-checked power-grab of the executive branch.

The ACLU said the Taylor decision should force congressional action, but it fears that such action will only make the situation worse.

“Congress needs to do its job and stop the president from violating the law,” they said. “The White House has stonewalled congressional attempts to investigate the administration’s circumvention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. President George W. Bush personally blocked a Department of Justice investigation regarding the NSA’s warrantless-wiretapping program. Although Congress lacks a full understanding of the facts, several bills have been introduced that would reward the government’s illegal actions by changing the law to legitimize the program.”

Maybe we should just make Bush king. After all, this is the man who said “If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier -- just as long as I'm the dictator.”

- Watch Alert archived post

U.S. Military Casualties for July, 2006

It's occurred to me that you just don't hear much about U.S. military casualties anymore. I mean, I keep up with it and I'm sure a lot of Americans do, but the media doesn't, really. I seem to recall that one of the big networks has a segment on one of their news programs called Faces of the Fallen, which features a different soldier every night. But my impression of that effort has always been that the music and delivery are too upbeat, and the presentation doesn't reflect the tragedy of a human life ending.

What you find in the general media are the numbers. The problem is, those numbers are an abstract idea. They can be horrifying if you take the time to think about them, but few of us do. 2,567 members of the U.S. military killed since the beginning of the Iraq War, 2,027 of those by hostile action. 18,988 wounded. See what I mean? It's hard to wrap our brains around how man people those numbers represent.

Well, I was looking at a list of the casualties for July, and I was just overwhelmed. So I thought I would post the casualty list that I was looking at, and then try to make a point about how desensitized Americans have become to the endless recitation of abstract numbers.

I implore you to read each and every name and description. It's the least we can do as Americans to honor their sacrifices.

July 21: Army Cpl. Matthew P. Wallace, 22, Lexington Park, Md., died in Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries sustained July 16 when his vehicle hit an explosive in Baghdad; assigned to the Army's 10th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

•Marine Capt. Christopher T. Pate, 29, Hampstead, N.C.; killed in Anbar province; assigned to 2nd Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company, Command Element, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

July 20: Army Pfc. Derek J. Plowman, 20, Everton, Ark.; died in Baghdad from a gun shot wound; assigned to the Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 142nd Fires Brigade, Rogers, Ark.

•Marine Cpl. Julian A. Ramon, 22, Flushing, N.Y.; was killed in Anbar province; assigned to 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

July 18: Marine Lance Cpl. Geofrey R. Cayer, 20, Fitchburg, Mass.; died in Anbar province of a non-hostile incident; assigned to 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

•Army Sgt. Mark R. Vecchione, 25, Tucson; died Tuesday in Ramadi when an explosive detonated near his vehicle; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 37th Armor Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Friedberg, Germany.

July 17: Army Cpl. Nathaniel S. Baughman, 23, Monticello, Ind.; died in Bayji when his vehicle was hit by grenades; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Ky.

•Army Staff Sgt. Michael A. Dickinson II, 26, Battle Creek, Mich.; died in Ramadi when his patrol was hit by small arms fire; assigned to the 9th Psychological Operations Battalion, 4th Psychological Operations Group, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, N.C.

•Army Cpl. Kenneth I. Pugh, 39, Houston; died in Baghdad when his vehicle was hit by small arms fire; assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

•Army Sgt. 1st Class Scott R. Smith, 34, Punxsutawney, Pa.; died Monday in Iskandariyah from an explosive; assigned to the 737th Explosive Ordnance Detachment, 52nd Ordnance Group, Fort Belvoir, Va.

July 16: Army Staff Sgt. Jason M. Evey, 29, Stockton, Calif.; died when his vehicle was hit by an explosive in Baghdad; assigned to the 1st Squadron, 10th Calvary Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, Fort Hood, Texas.

July 15: Army Sgt. Andres J. Contreras, 23, Huntington Park, Calif.; died when his vehicle was hit by an explosive in Baghdad; assigned to the 519th Military Police Battalion, 1st Combat Support Brigade, Fort Polk, La.

•Army Spc. Manuel J. Holguin, 21, Woodlake, Calif.; died Saturday in Baghdad when his patrol was hit by small arms fire and an explosive; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, Baumholder, Germany.

July 14: Army Sgt. Thomas B. Turner Jr., 31, Cottonwood, Calif.; died at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries from July 13 when an explosive detonated near his vehicle in Muqdadiyah; assigned to the 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Ky.

July 13: Army Sgt. Alkaila T. Floyd, 23, Grand Rapids, Mich.; died in Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries from an explosive on July 8 in Ramadi; assigned to the 54th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade, Bamberg, Germany.

July 12: Army Sgt. Irving Hernandez Jr., 28, New York; died in Mosul from small arms fire; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Fort Wainwright, Alaska.

•Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Jerry A. Tharp, 44, Muscatine, Iowa; died when his vehicle was struck by an explosive in Anbar province; assigned to Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 25, Rock Island, Ill.

July 10: Army Sgt. Duane J. Dreasky, 31, Novi, Mich.; died at the Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, of injuries from an explosive detonated near his vehicle in Habbaniyah on Nov. 21; assigned to the National Guard's 1st Battalion, 119th Field Artillery, Lansing, Mich.

July 9: Army Spc. Damien M. Montoya, 21, Holbrook, Ariz.; died in Baghdad from a non-hostile incident; assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

July 8: Army Staff Sgt. Omar D. Flores, 27, Mission, Texas; Army Spc. Troy C. Linden, 22, Detroit Lakes, Minn.; and Army Spc. Joseph P. Micks, 22, Rapid River, Mich. were killed in Ramadi from an explosive near their vehicle; assigned to the 54th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade, Warner Barracks, Bamberg, Germany.

July 3: Army Staff Sgt. Paul S. Pabla, 23, Fort Wayne, Ind.; died in Mosul from small arms fire; assigned to the National Guard's 139th Field Artillery, Kempton, Ind.

July 2: Army Pfc. Collin T. Mason, 20, New York; killed by indirect fire while manning a checkpoint in his vehicle in Taji; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

•Marine Sgt. Justin L. Noyes, 23, Vinita, Okla.; died in Anbar province; assigned to 9th Engineer Support Battalion, 3rd Marine Logistics Group, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan.

July 1: Air Force Airman 1st Class Carl Jerome Ware Jr., 22, Smyrna, Del.; died from a non-hostile incident at Camp Bucca; assigned to the 15th Security Forces Squadron, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.

Conservatives will be quick to point out that some of the deaths listed above did not occur in combat. That's the kind of sick f**ks they are, that a human life means less to them if they can't use it for their political purposes. It's the same thing as the U.S. military spinning the numbers so that the casualties don't seem so bad. Oh, sure, we've had over 2,500 killed. They openly discuss that. What they don't say much about is the over 18,000 that have been wounded.

Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that the list above seems rather overwhelming when you look at how many names are on it, and reflect that each one of those names was a living, breathing human being. Husbands. Fathers. Sons. Living, vibrant people, with lives and families.

Think about how large that list seems now, and reflect that these are only 26 soldiers. 26 of the 2,567 killed.

I hope you see my point.

- Watch Alert archived post
- U.S. Casualties database

Minimum Wage, Maximum Gall

Here's an article by Harold Meyerson from the Washington Post, concerning the Republicans' latest sleight-of-hand. Essentially, the Republicans have decided to raise the minimum wage after fighting it tooth and nail for over a decade. Know why? They've finally realized that they're getting hammered over it. For some reason the poor people who would benefit from raising the minimum wage haven't been too happy with the Republicans for blocking that all these years. But in true Republican fashion, they used the occasion of raising the minimum wage to kick back more tax cuts to their rich buddies, and are hoping that the poor and the riff-raff will so grateful for their charity that they won't mind the rich getting richer (again).

The Republican party is beginning to seem like some evil force out of a Greek tradegy. How can any group of people be that morally bankrupt and yet still wrap themselves in the blanket of Christian values?

Anyway, Mr. Meyerson sums up the issue rather well.

Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid has taken to invoking Harry Truman's line about a “do-nothing Congress,” and with ample reason. In dealing with the major issues of our time (global warming, immigration, the diminishing benefits and stagnant wages that characterize today's economy) or in discharging its oversight duties over administration policies that have failed (the war in Iraq) or were stillborn (the rescue of New Orleans), the Republican-controlled Congress has been nowhere to be found. In inverse relation to the seriousness of the challenges that America confronts, this Congress is well on its way to spending the fewest days in session of any in modern memory.

Still, the one thing that should engender more fear than the current Congress's doing nothing is the current Congress's doing something. Every time congressional Republicans are compelled by public pressure to address a serious issue, they retreat to their laboratory and emerge with Frankenstein-monster legislation designed primarily to reward their campaign donors and stick it to the Democrats, and only secondarily to fix the problem. The Medicare drug program they crafted with the Bush White House enabled seniors to obtain some medications at a lower price, but it codified the continued upward spiral of drug prices by forbidding the government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies -- a linchpin of Republican campaign finance -- to bring prices down.

Now they're at it again. Facing pressure from Northeastern and Midwestern House Republicans fearful of losing their seats this November, the House leadership has at long last relented and crafted a bill, which passed the House at around 1:30 Saturday morning, to raise the hourly minimum wage from its current abysmal $5.15 to $7.25 in three separate stages over the next three years. A decade has passed since Congress last hiked the minimum wage, during which time it has managed in a series of votes to raise its own members' salaries by a cool $31,000. Democrats and labor were hammering the Republicans over this most double of standards; minimum-wage workers were showing up at the Republicans' district offices and on local TV newscasts to dramatize the disparity.

So Republicans had to respond, and they did so in their inimitable cynical fashion. Appended to the minimum wage hike that the vast majority of them opposed was a provision genuinely dear to their hearts: a cut in the estate tax that chiefly benefits the super-rich and that will reduce government revenue over the next decade, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by $753 billion. The shortfall could well lead to offsetting cuts in programs that benefit the same working poor that the minimum-wage increase would help. But who cares about the poor? The whole point of the exercise was to come up with a bill that might force some Democrats to vote for an estate tax cut they would otherwise oppose, and enable Republicans to claim they weren't really the Dickensian grotesques that many of them in fact are.

Which may be why the Republicans' midnight orations in favor of raising the wage bore minimal resemblance to, say, the Sermon on the Mount. Their tone was best captured by Tennessee Rep. Zach Wamp, a Mayberry Machiavelli if ever there was one, who could not restrain himself from telling House Democrats, “You have seen us really outfox you on this issue tonight.”

Wamp's taunt can serve as the credo for this entire Republican Congress, which legislates only when, and because, it can outfox the Democrats. It is the credo of the Bush administration as well, which views even its signature policy -- its war on terrorism -- as its foremost wedge issue against the Democrats. Combine this hyper-partisan ethos with a far-right ideology that sees no role for the government even as our corporate welfare state crumbles and our planet turns to toast, and you get a more do-nothing government than Harry Truman could have even imagined.

So the solutions for national problems get kicked downstairs. To date 23 states have passed minimum-wage standards higher than the feds' -- and none of them in statutes designed to subvert themselves or play gotcha with the opposition party. States have begun to enact universal health insurance plans, while cities are passing living-wage ordinances. And just this Monday, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tony Blair signed an agreement between the sovereign state of California and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to curb greenhouse gas emissions, promote clean fuels and fight global warming. “California will not wait for our federal government to take strong action on global warming,” said Schwarzenegger, who understands that for a Republican to win election in Democratic California, he has to be a down-the-line environmentalist.

In Washington, meanwhile, Republicans are desperate to hold power. Not to govern, mind you, just hold power.

By Harold Meyerson
meyersonh@washpost.com
Wednesday, August 2, 2006

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article