DOWNLOADS: (96)

PLAYS: (421)

Embed

The weeper of the House reacted to the question of whether Edward Snowden was a patriot or a traitor about as expected, a stand which will probably rankle a few feathers among some libertarian-minded and tea party republicans. He also noted he's been briefed on all these snooping programs and agrees with them. For privacy rights, Boehner noted 9 of 10 people in the room are usually lawyers there to protect the American public. Or somethin'. If only these guys could learn to couch their phrases in less cartoonish jingoism they might be a shade more convincing. Maybe.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker, thank you for doin' this. Let's talk first about these-- revelations about the National Security Agency. Edward Snowden has come forward, said he brought the documents into the public eye. His supporters say he's-- a whistle-blowing patriot. His critics say he's betrayed the country, broken the law. Where do you stand?

JOHN BOEHNER: He's a traitor. The president outlined last week that these were important national security programs to help keep Americans safe, and give us tools-- to fight the terrorist threat th-- that we face. The president also outlined that there are appropriate safeguards in place-- to make sure that-- there's-- there's no-- snooping, if you will-- on Americans-- here at home. But-- the disclosure of this information-- puts Americans at risk. It shows-- our adversaries what our capabilities are. And-- it's a giant violation of the law.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (85)

PLAYS: (475)

Embed

Sen. Mark Udall has been one of the few members of Congress out there who has been trying to draw attention to the NSA's datamining program and the seizure of Americans' phone records. He continued to do so on CNN this Sunday when he told host Candy Crowley that he's calling for the Patriot Act to be reopened:

Sen. Mark Udall, who's long called for greater transparency in how the government collects data on Americans, said Sunday the law allowing that monitoring should be reopened for debate after new disclosures about the scope of the intelligence community's snooping.

"It concerns me particularly because Americans didn't know this. That's why I'm calling for a reopening of the Patriot Act, I'm calling for a wholesome debate across the country," Udall, a Colorado Democrat, said on CNN's "State of the Union."

"Maybe Americans think this is OK, but I think the line has been drawn too far towards 'We're going to invade your privacy,' versus 'We're going to respect your privacy,' " he told chief political correspondent Candy Crowley.

Udall also expressed skepticism "that the National Security Agency’s massive phone tracking program was really necessary to help the government thwart possible terrorist attacks.":

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (146)

PLAYS: (1074)

Embed

You've got to love this logic from the right wingers like Malkin who supported this domestic spying program under Bush suddenly having a problem with the spying and data mining under Obama -- now it's completely different because the Kenyan usurper terrorist lover is doing it.

On this Thursday's Fox & Friends, resident flame thrower Michelle Malkin gave the right's latest sorry excuse for why this was acceptable under Bush but not Obama and that is, Obama declared the "war on terror is over"... even though that's not exactly what he said.

Apparently in Malkin's world, as long as you're willing to declare perpetual war against a tactic, spying on Americans who haven't done anything wrong is perfectly acceptable. And of course, as always, there's that other rule, which is IOKIYAR.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (142)

PLAYS: (986)

Embed

Current TV's John Fugelsang and progressive talk show host Thom Hartmann discussed Rand Paul and his 13-hour-long filibuster this week, demanding an answer on whether the Obama administration believes that they can authorize drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil. As Hartmann rightfully noted, though, that filibuster probably had a whole lot more to do with Paul and his political future than any actual concern over our use of drones:

HARTMANN: It was a discussion we have been needing to have ever since the Patriot Act was pushed through in 2002... so to the extent that we have been needing to have that discussion, I'm really pleased. On the other hand, this was Rand Paul kicking off his 2016 presidential bid.

Paul received his answer on the drone strikes and as many have noted, he actually had his answer well before he started his filibuster, but as Hartmann noted here, the question that he should have been asking and to which he did not get an answer is, "What does 'engaged in combat' mean?" when we haven't had a declaration of war since 1941. With the rules in the Patriot Act set so loosely, the executive branch has the freedom to define those terms, as Hartmann put it, pretty well any damn way they want to. With the exception of the neocons, most Americans would not believe that the Constitution grants these rights to the executive branch.

Of course, speaking of neocons, as they also discussed, that's why we saw the likes of Lindsey Graham out there berating Paul and any Republicans who did not mind that the Bush administration was using drones but are now upset that the Obama administration is using those same powers that the Congress ceded to them after 9-11.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (265)

PLAYS: (1216)

Embed

The one thing you can say about this Cheney family -- they've got their lies and they're sticking to them -- no matter what. After feeling the need to give the Bush administration some glowing praise for torture, the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay, Bill O'Reilly actually challenged the assertion that we were greeted as liberators in Iraq made by Dick Cheney years ago on Meet the Press. Naturally, his daughter Liz, disagreed.

O'Reilly pointed to the falling of the statue of Saddam Hussein and that there was only a very small group of people there as evidence that we were not greeted as liberators. What Billo failed to point out to her during this softball interview, is that event was staged by our military as our own Silent Patriot reminded us of back on the 4th anniversary of that event.

As to Cheney still repeating the "greeted as liberators" line, John Amato wrote about this back in 2007 when John McCain was carrying water for the Bush administration, repeating that already tired and debunked line back then as well:

John McCain told Tim Russert that America was greeted as liberators when we got to Iraq. What is he talking about. When were we ever greeted as liberators? It wasn't like ten months of peace and tranquility. The looting began almost immediately. He also says that the war was easy. Easy for who?

One thing we can count on is that as long as these neocons and supporters of the Iraq invasion are still alive, they're going to do their best to continue to revise the history books in their favor.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (558)

PLAYS: (1851)

Embed

During an interview with George W. Bush which aired on C-SPAN's Q&A discussing his book Decision Points at the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, the former president was asked if he was "concerned that legislation that you passed such as the Patriot Act opens the door for potential abuse by future presidencies?". Never mind the abuses during his presidency that failed soundly.

He followed it up by saying that he was glad the Congress decided to pass The Patriot Act and renew it again no matter which party was in the majority and defended his administration's spying and torture, or as he called it "enhanced interrogation" that he claimed was necessary to keep us safe from terrorism. He also claimed that The Patriot Act assured that civil liberties were not undermined.

Nothing like some major revisionist history from Bush with no one there to push back during this softball forum from C-SPAN.

CAMERATO: Good morning Mr. President. My name is C.J. Camerato and I’m from Boston Massachusetts and I’m curious, were or are you concerned that legislation that you passed such as the Patriot Act opens the door for potential abuse by future presidencies?

BUSH: Great question. The law that was passed twice by the Congress, once when Republicans controlled the Congress, when we controlled the Congress and once after the ’06 election when we got soundly thumped, guarantee civil liberties and there’s a lot of safeguards in the law. And I don’t think a president can… can, through executive order preempt the safeguards in the Patriot Act. There are plenty of checks and balances in our system and throughout the book and historians will note throughout my presidency that I worked assiduously to make sure that civil liberties were not undermined.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (335)

PLAYS: (261)

Embed

Surprise, surprise, former Bushie Fran Townsend thinks this ruling by the Supreme Court is just wonderful. Common Dreams issued this press release which countered Townsend's praise of the decision.

Supreme Court Criminalizes Speech in Ruling in Patriot Act Case:

NEW YORK and WASHINGTON - June 21 - Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to criminalize speech in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the first case to challenge the Patriot Act before the highest court in the land, and the first post-9/11 case to pit free speech guarantees against national security claims. Attorneys say that under the Court’s ruling, many groups and individuals providing peaceful advocacy could be prosecuted, including President Carter for training all parties in fair election practices in Lebanon. President Carter submitted an amicus brief in the case.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case back to the lower court for review; Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. The Court held that the statute's prohibitions on "expert advice," "training," "service," and "personnel" were not vague, and did not violate speech or associational rights as applied to plaintiffs' intended activities. Plaintiffs sought to provide assistance and education on human rights advocacy and peacemaking to the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey, a designated terrorist organization. Multiple lower court rulings had found the statute unconstitutionally vague.

...Said CCR Senior Attorney Shayana Kadidal, “The Court’s decision confirms the extraordinary scope of the material support statute’s criminalization of speech. But it also notes that the scope of the prohibitions may not be clear in every application, and that remains the case for the many difficult questions raised at argument but dodged by today’s opinion, including whether publishing an op-ed or submitting an amicus brief in court arguing that a group does not belong on the list is a criminal act. The onus is now on Congress and the Obama administration to ensure that humanitarian groups may engage in human rights advocacy, training in non-violent conflict resolution, and humanitarian assistance in crisis zones without fearing criminal prosecution.”

Contrary to that opinion, former Bushie Fran Townsend thought this was "tremendous win for not only the United States but for the current administration". Never mind those pesky legal implications where those doing humanitarian work could get sucked in by this as well. As the Common Dreams article noted, President Carter could now be prosecuted for monitoring free elections in Lebanon.

Continue reading »

Here's your weekly Driftglass and Bluegal podcast.

You can listen to past editions here.

If you enjoy these as much as I do you can help keep them going by throwing a few bucks in the hat. DG and BG are committed to keeping these podcasts weekly, they pay for the hosting themselves, and your five dollar donation makes it possible for them to continue.

(Warning, slightly not safe for work.)

From The Colbert Report:

If Congress doesn't reauthorize the Patriot Act, America's corporations are ready to step in.

TPM has more--How Easy Is It For The Police To Get GPS Data From Your Phone?:

Police can in some cases track cell phone location by merely telling a court that the information is relevant to an investigation, a legal expert tells TPM -- a fact that may partly explain how law enforcement racked up 8 million requests for GPS data from a single wireless carrier in a year.

An increasingly popular and easy-to-access surveillance tool for police, GPS data is not currently protected by the Fourth Amendment, and the standards for gaining access to the information are murky and highly variable. That's partly because one of the statutes that bears on the issue was passed in the mid-1980s, before many of the technologies involved were invented. And Congress hasn't done much to update the law since.

Continue reading...

October 29, 2009 C-SPAN

Part 1

Part 2

From Alternet--Obama Is Keeping Bush's Worst "War on Terror" Policies Firmly In Place

We know the rules by now, the strange conventions and stilted Kabuki scripts that govern our cartoon facsimile of a national security debate. The Obama administration makes vague, reassuring noises about constraining executive power and protecting civil liberties, but then merrily adopts whatever appalling policy George W. Bush put in place. Conservatives hit the panic button on the right-wing noise machine anyway, keeping the delicate ecosystem in balance by creating the false impression that something has changed. We've watched the formula play out with Guantánamo Bay, torture prosecutions and the invocation of "state secrets." We appear to be on the verge of doing the same with national security surveillance.

Continue reading...