If you don't read Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon.com regularly…..I highly recommend doing so. I have been reading Greenwald for a few years. He is a constitutional lawyer with a razor sharp writing style that's easy for laypeople, like me, to follow. Of all print media, Greenwald's blog ranks 9th in a list of the most widely read publications.
This morning Greenwald blogs about yesterday's released Inspector General's report on former president Bush's NSA activities.
If you recall, Bush started a secret and illegal program immediately after 9-11 that he eventually called the "Terrorist Surveillance Program"(TSP). Bush's new program directly violated existing wiretapping laws as set forward in the FISA laws passed in 1978.
Let's review….
Bush's secret and illegal program wiretapping Americans without FISA warrants came up for "renewal" in 2004. That was when the whole late night hospital room visit to then Attorney General, John Ashcroft, took place. Andrew Card and Abu Gonzlaes were dispatched to Ashcroft's room to pressure the heavily medicated AG to sign off on Bush's "programs."
The IG report informs us that it was Bush, himself, who badgered Mrs. Ashcroft on the hospital phone insisting that her husband must meet with Card and Gonzales. The reason for this frantic Soprano-like scene was because acting AG, James Comey, would not sign-off renewing the "programs."
Why not?
Conservative Bushies, James Comey, Jack Goldsmith and eventually, even Ashcroft, himself, threatened to resign rather than sign-off on the renewal of the president's illegal "programs."
From the IG report….
"On March 12, 2004 an interagency working group led by OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) was convened reanalyzing the legality of the PSP. In the days that followed, Goldsmith continued to express doubt that a viable legal rationale could be found for some of the Other Intelligence Activities being conducted under the PSP.
On March 16, 2004 Comey drafted a memorandum to White House Counsel Gonzales setting out his advice to the President. According to the memorandum, Comey advised that DOJ remained unable to find a legal basis to support certain Other Intelligence Activities that had been authorized as part of the program and that such activities should be discontinued immediately."
There's no question here that even loyal Bushies thought the President had violated law.
Here's Gonzales responding on the evening of March 16….
"Your memorandum appears to have been based on a misunderstanding of the President's expectations regarding the conduct of the Department of Justice. While the President was, and remains, interested in any thoughts the DOJ may have on alternative ways to achieve effectively the goals of the activities authorized by the presdiential Authorization of March 11, 2004, the president has addressed definitively for the Executive branch in the Presidential Authorization the interpretation of the law."
You see….Bush didn't care whether his own Justice Department had concluded that the "activities" were illegal and needed to be stopped, "immediately." Bush, alone, had already determined the proper "interpretation" of the law. Bush, through Gonzales, was telling his own supporters in the DOJ to f*ck off…..just sign the renewal like I told you to, nobody asked for your legal opinions.
Even though the illegal wiretapping program was eventually signed off on….the "Other Intelligence Activities" were dropped by Bush. We can only speculate on the nature of these "other", apparently, extremely illegal, "activities." The IG report doesn't tell us anything about them.
Now imagine…loyal conservative Bushies, Comey, Goldsmith, Ashcroft, were willing to resign over the "other activities", rather than sign-off giving their approval.
Just how rogue was the Bush White House?
We'll never know.
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
So this is just another reason BHO got elected, move on. It is just another distraction. But then again BHO needs distractions after letting me down, this way I may not notice that pork is up, Gitmo is open, and we are all losing our jobs.
You forgot 2 important parts of the story…."once upon a time" and …"they lived hap[ily ever after"…..
Information about a rogue, oath breaking, Constitution-shredding, war criminal President is now simply a….."distraction."
Is law and order now only a teevee program?
Yes shredding the constitution is a distraction, it has been torn apart for a long time now, didn't you notice? I believe it all started with a Kansas farmer wanting to grow wheat for his own use,but he was arrested all in the name of interstate commerce. Have you ever read it? There is a line "insure domestic tranquility", right there in the preamble (you know the important part that gets ignored even though it defines what the constituion is for). You may say what is getting shredded is past interpretation of law, but that has nothing to do with the constitution.
I would like to add something to this discussion.
It occurred to me to ask Rev(erse) to list his top 5 complaints about Bush. Then I thought about mentioning FISA is an illegal attempt to amend the constitution via statute.
But really, averagejoe5 has said it all.
Rev,
Lots of denial out there. Short on specifics, though. People allowing their fear to overcome their brains
I think for the conservative commenters here, it's not about fear so much as it is about disagreeing with liberals.
For example, Limbaugh says a lot of the stuff he says just to piss off liberals. Yank their chain.
But then again, upon further review, fear probably has a lot to do with it, too.
Specifics take knowledge and understanding……a problem solving mindset that weighs the evidence and then makes a larger picture evaluation.
It's easier to just try to piss off liberals.
bzzzp…good one on the FISA "amending the Constitution" laugh. Kind of strange, don't ya' think, that NO president ever had a problem obeying FISA until W.? No test case by conservatives ever worked it's way up to the Supremes either……you know, challenging FISA's constitutionality.
Rehasing old ground.
The Rev is omitting one big piece of information here. Calling the Bush wiretapping program illegal is just the Rev's opinion. The federal appeals court saw things differently.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html
There has never been a need to challenge FISA in the courts. IF someone was ever brought up on charges, you can bet the constitutionality would be challenged. It all stems from the libs inability to understand that there is a difference between war and law enforcement.
On a different note- the easiest way to piss off liberals is to use your brain.
There has never been a need to challenge FISA in the courts because it has never provided much resistance. If it were challenged in courts, it could just as easily be overturned on that basis. The real reason the Bush administration illegally bypassed FISA was that with FISA came a record, one which could be eventually used against them.
The easiest way to piss off "conservatives" and especially "libertarians" is to show how readily they violate their own principals such as adherence to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, fiscal conservancy, smaller, less intrusive government, etc. when they let themselves be ruled by fear.
Ouch.
Conservatism never fails, it is eternal. It is only Republicans masquerading as conservatives who, sigh, fail conservatism. We know this is true because majority Republicans and a Republican executive branch left us in the sad state that we find ourelves in, a genuine failure…..so those Republicans couldn't have really been conservatives at all…..why not?, one might ask……because conservatism can never fail.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
King's linked piece ends with this exchange…
"But, the court ruled, “this is little more than a lament about the risk that government officials will not operate in good faith.’
“That sort of risk exists even when a warrant is required,” it said."
Yeah, a real sound judgment that is. The court was flipping the bird at the 4th amendment in a biased ruling for executive lawlessness. I wonder why Americans would conclude that their government isn't operating in good faith. I wonder. You know, life's a risk, warrants are a risk, even though, yeah, that's the law, but hey you just gotta take that risk. F*ck that ruling.
I'll take your last sentence as a mea culpa, Reverend. It must be frustrating that after all this time and effort you've still got nothing. It's like Cheney's your Moriarty or something.
There's plenty. There is just no will in D.C.
What is interesting is the casualness with which conservatives regard national traitors and international war criminals. Just interesting. Blowjobs? Now that's a different story. Some stuff is just too threatening.
I'm all in as soon as you locate some evidence, Reverend.
frank,
Libertarians/Conservatives get pissed off when thousands of their countrymen die in terrorist attacks on the same day. Recognition of the need for self-defense/offense tends to kick in about then.
With liberals, not so much. Liberals immediately start blaming Bush instead.
Rev says, "F*ck that ruling."
Such disdain for the rule of law, Rev. Tsk, tsk. I knew you really didn't care about the law, just about getting your way.
But as always, Al Qaeda agrees with you, so there's that.
Liberals were mostly in favor of going after al-Qaeda after 9-11.
That ruling, as proven in Hamdan, would never stand up in the Supreme Court….at least, not until one more neo-con is put on the bench.
Mr. King,
Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that Libertarians wanted smaller, less intrusive government than Bush offered. I also thought they valued quick decisive action, unlike the lack of concern about the warnings they received from within our government and other governments' intelligence agencies about Al Qaeda and 9/11. I also thought that Libertarians could tell the difference between seeking justice or revenge against Al Qaeda and instituting an illegal war of aggression against a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. My bad.
"Liberals were mostly in favor of going after al-Qaeda after 9-11."
That's very telling… why were some Liberals NOT in favor of going after al-Qaeda following 9-11?
The same reasons not ALL conservatives were in favor.