Cookiegate?

Cookiegate Hits White House

The AP has reported that despite federal rules banning most cookies, the National Security Agency's Web site was placing them on visitors' computers to track their surfing activities.

Nothing new, I suppose. But this does not bode well given the NSA's other recent activities... Sigh.

DOJ Slight of Hand?

Dept of Justice begins an investigation into the leak of BushCo's covert warrantless spying on Americans.

Happy New Year to the BushCo administration! While certainly, all leaks of classified material to the public should be investigated, as in the case of Libby and Rove's treasonous outing of a CIA agent, is it coincidence that the focus is away from the President's crime? Any naive person would wonder so and there must be plenty of them out there. The point here is that BushCo broke one of the same laws that impeached Nixon. This has been subject to interpretation, but the point is clear - the FISA court was set up for these very purposes and the court has almost never denied a retroactive warrant request.

Some fool on NPR this morning claimed that a computer program (aka Echelon or Carnivore) was used by the NSA and that the computer is following the conversations and emails, but cannot indicate where they are coming from or where they are going at any given time. He also mentioned (and I am paraphrasing here)that the 1978 FISA law is outdated now that the new tracking technology is in place and that the Congress or the President must change the law. What? It shouldn't be there in the first place...

Administration officials insisted that Bush has the power to conduct the warrantless surveillance under the Constitution's war powers provision. They also argued that Congress gave Bush the power to conduct such a secret program when it authorized the use of military force against terrorism in a resolution adopted within days of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

What is at issue here is abuse of power. Not whether our government and security forces have the right to track terrorists. BushCo still has to follow the law. The "authorization" from Congress was not a formal declaration of war against a known actual entity, it was a blank check to track down the terrorists who attacked New York and Washington. So, it is a hard sell by this administration to say the Congress gave them the authority to spy on Americans without warrants and notifying the FISA court - especially when very few congresspeople and senators actually knew of the secret program.

Impeachment all around?

Katrina Vanden Heuvel of the Nation explores the growing call for impeachment.

BushCo's latest illegal wiretapping or US citizens is even angering those on the Right (Subscription Required). Some highlights of the Barron's piece titled, "Unwarranted Executive Power: The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws:"

AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers...

Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't last four years...

Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.

Surely the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary eventually will point out what a stretch this is. The most important presidential responsibility under Article II is that he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power. There's not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ.

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment...

Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror.

(Excerpts via BuzzFlash)

Shall we dance?

Dems bare teeth and block attempt to allow oil drilling in Alaskan wildlife reserve

With the help of some moderate Republicans, the Senate Democrats' filibustering of ANWAR oil drilling pulls through.

The Republican majority failed to get the 60 votes in the 100-member chamber needed to cut off debate yesterday. The vote was 56-44. Republicans had hoped to win passage by making the oil drilling issue part of a $453bn (?260bn) defence spending bill that has earmarked money for troops in Iraq and relief for Hurricane Katrina victims. Although few politicians wanted to be seen rejecting a bill that pays the salaries of US troops in Iraq, Democrats and a few Republicans who have always opposed drilling conducted an extended debate, known as a filibuster, to delay its passage. Because of the vote, Senate leaders are expected to rework the bill to eliminate the oil-drilling proposal.

The fact that this rider was slid into the defense bill was the defining reason.

"Our military is being held hostage by this issue,"said Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader. He added that the Senate could move quickly to pass the defence bill once the Arctic refuge issue had been resolved. Senator John Kerry, who has been a fierce critic of disturbing the Alaskan wilderness, said: "We all agree we want money for our troops ... This is not about the troops."

Kerry is right on. It is indefensible to think the Rep Ted Stevens, who stands to gain the most form this - to the tune of $10 Billion, would stick this greedy measure into the bill the affects troops and Hurricane victims. The arrogant and greedy Stevens is apparently never going to give up. It is said that the measure called for at least 50% of the monies benefit the Feds. However, Alaska would sue to receive some 90% of the money. This is clearly not about drilling or defense at all, but about money?

Novak dumped by CNN, goes to Fox!

Poynter posts theletter from CNN. Think Progess follows up on the move the Fox via Media Bistro.

It's done - Patriot Act extension rejected

Feingold leads the charge as the Senate rejects extension of Patriot Act. What a fitting end to 2005.

"We can come together to give the government the tools it needs to fight terrorism and protect the rights and freedoms of innocent citizens," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., arguing that provisions permitting government access to confidential personal data lacked safeguards to protect the innocent.

BushCo Authorizes Eavesdropping on Americans

The Times came out with a late story yesterday indicating that Bush lifted some limits on spying in U.S. after 9/11.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

See, what gets me here is that the Administration doesn't really care about civil liberties. Security against terrorism is a grim truth today. The cost is what the NSA does with this information that is useless and whether they are targeting the "right" people and not anti-war activists, left-leaning organizations, etc. And, besides, "we are fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here..." What are agencies that focus solely on foreign lands doing spying domestically? Preventative maintenance? This sounds like an exercise in absolute power. And, we know there is no internal oversight, which tells us that the checks and balances system is not working.

Interestingly enough, The Times plays into the covertness of the story with involvement...

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Was this a polite nod given the recent hubbub over Miller and the TreasonGate affair or journalistic integrity due the political landscape the Times has been trudging through as of late? It begs to question what the arrangement was, but I am reaching here. Besides, the legality of what power BushCo holds is the issue. The Times article goes on, noting the White House intentions...

The eavesdropping program grew out of concerns after the Sept. 11 attacks that the nation's intelligence agencies were not poised to deal effectively with the new threat of Al Qaeda and that they were handcuffed by legal and bureaucratic restrictions better suited to peacetime than war, according to officials. In response, President Bush significantly eased limits on American intelligence and law enforcement agencies and the military.

But Americans, civil libertarians and watchdogs know what is a perceived threat and what it not. The slide in BushCo polls indicate that Americans see through the GOP rhetoric and realize that the administration gets away with a lot more than it should. According to the Times, some government officials have similar reservations:

Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the legality of the program. But nothing came of his inquiry. "People just looked the other way because they didn't want to know what was going on," he said.

A senior government official recalled that he was taken aback when he first learned of the operation. "My first reaction was, ?We're doing what?' " he said. While he said he eventually felt that adequate safeguards were put in place, he added that questions about the program's legitimacy were understandable.

Adequate. That is what we have come down to - mediocrity in intelligence - whether it is safeguards or gathering. It is important to consider that America's mission is to hold itself to a higher standard. Free peoples have the level of expectation that Big Brother is not watching them. Intelligence agencies concentrate on looking at the big fish, not the local citizen wanting to give a donation to a Palestinian children's fund.

Several senior government officials say that when the special operation first began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials. Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation, a former senior Bush administration official said. Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.

This is rich, this one. Spies are so elated that BushCo is in charge, because they can do anything they want, freedom be damned... I would read on.

Breakdown in the GOP machine - Novak fires at Bush

BushCo takes issue with Novak on CIA leak claim.
Traitor calling traitors the traitors...

"I'm confident the president knows who the source is," Novak told a luncheon in Raleigh, North Carolina, according to the Raleigh News & Observer. "I'd be amazed if he doesn't."

He added: "So I say, don't bug me. Don't bug (Washington Post reporter) Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is."

Election officials accused of ignoring their own electronic voting laws?

Apparently, in North Carolina...

In the suit filed last week, EFF says the North Carolina State Board of Elections -- working with the Office of Information Technology Services -- certified two vendors to sell machines in North Carolina although the vendors did not comply with a new law requiring them to place all source code for a system into escrow before the machines could be certified.

The question is why election officials neglected to check? Further...

To prevent future problems, the law mandates that voting vendors place source code for "all software that is relevant to functionality, setup, configuration and operation of the voting system" into escrow and provide a list of all programmers who created the software. Breaking the law is a felony and carries civil penalties up to $100,000 per violation.

Incentives? Nope. Diebold had an excuse:

Diebold spokesman David Bear said the filing was necessary because Diebold's system uses some commercial-off-the-shelf software, or COTS, created by other companies. Its touch-screen machines, for example, run on Microsoft's Windows CE operating system. Bear said Diebold didn't have authority to escrow code belonging to another company.

"Obviously we have no problem providing our own source code; we do provide it in other states," Bear said.

Right? Sure they do. The question is whether the source code is changed after "it is provided," and before the election. Ask the Ohioans - they have an idea. The other scary thing here is that the security of our votes also rely on the Windows CE OS. That doesn't make me any more confident. The article summarizes the history pretty well.

Diebold CEO Resigns as fraud Litigation is filed

Diebold is the company caught up in the voting machine errors all over the country, which has prompted many to believe and investigate whether the vote on state and national levels has been fixed. Consider that the CEO and other executives give heavily to the GOP. It makes you wonder who really has control of the democratic vote.

Dave over at GuvWurld, who has worked tirelessly for election reform, does a nice job summarizing recent events. He also discusses and analyzes the recent GAO Report on Election Security in depth. Other details via Bradblog.com - who has been following Diebold's voting ethics for some time.

Tookie is Killed

As many of you know, Stanley Tookie Williams was executed last night after midnight Tuesday morning.

It is a sad day today for Californians. I feel sad and depressed, because I realize that we have not learned. We cannot solve violence by performing violence on others. We cannot simply cut off the evil be shooting it with a gun or injecting it with a needle. Doctors will tell you plainly that cutting out the cancer does not necessarily stop its spread. The body is a system - the good bacteria and bad bacteria, good cells and bad cells. It is the balance amongst there parts that keep the system stable and useable. You must live with and embrace the fact that you have diabetes, HIV, MS. It is unavoidable. It is life. And do life rears its ugly head and people do very bad things. But people also do very good things. If the overriding factor or good maintains its steady pace, evil will never prevail. Tookie knew that and regretted his creation of the terrible gang violence that has plagued American impoverished neighborhoods. The violence on the streets has not brought these poor folks success or money or power, but shame and grief. The families of the victims of Tookie's wrath, be it direct or indirect, know this all too well. Their pain does not end because Tookie's life has. It will not save the lives of other family members who may die in senseless tragedies. Crime will not simply stop in South Central or the Bronx or West Oakland, because we killed the founder of one gang. Bloods and Crips aren't laying down their arms. Race riots in Australia aren't on hiatus. Black and Brown peoples the world over aren't sighing in relief. Was it worth it? Was it necessary?

It is shameful. America, as a democratic, industrialized, a supposedly evolved nation, cannot simply come to terms with the death penalty. It is difficult, I realize. But, that does not mean we walk away until the next night when some poor fool and undoubtedly evil person walks to his or her death. We become what they are. They reject society and choose to perform terrible and indefensible acts on others. But when we sentence a person to death, do we understand why? Is it revenge? Moral outrage? Ignorance? We address the effects, not the causes. We ignore the real issues that put people like Tookie on Death Row. We assume that the hood is just another neighborhood, only poorer... It never ends.

America was intended to be a different place; one that holds itself to a higher standard. One where all peoples are created equal, the rich and the poor, black and the white, good and the bad. That was the hope. We would not engage is the terrible acts of our enemies. We would not torture. We would share, build and learn. We would unite. We would deliberate and consider. We would include and create peace treaties, disarm, deter, discuss. We would rehabilitate, not incarcerate. Redeem, not react. This was and is our way. So, all legal arguments aside, what Tookie did was wrong. He was responsible somehow, whether directly or indirectly, of the deaths of four people over 25 years ago. He may have wielded the gun. He may have ordered the crime. He may have apprenticed or influenced the people who actually carried it out. Two decades of legal wrangling, appeals, and courts upholding the verdict, show us the justice system did not appear to consider otherwise.

The real question here is whether Tookie became a man of redemption, did he make up for the havoc we caused - the many more people that died because of his creation? This is about more than the four people who died during those robberies. Pro-death penalty advocates will tell you that, and it is not without merit. His affect has been tenfold and if it was not these 4 poor people, it was many others. But, when a man rejects that useless life and works day after day to reverse it for the rest of his life, does that achieve more and impact society for the better? Is redemption a word reserved only for the few who say it? Or does a person's actions dictate his or her redemptive quality? Will he do more know for society or more if he had lived? These are the difficult questions we must ask. Who are we to judge, with all our flawed selves, who should live and who should die?

And lastly, that brings me to whether our leaders actually consider the moral implications and obligations to the compassionate democracy we are founder on. The Governor of California, with his stern words that Tookie had not shown any form of redemption, had made his decision out of understanding not politics, we would expect more anti-gang work from Tookie today. The Democratic obligation to rehabilitation would be intact. We would have progressed one very important step. But, that does not matter to those who lead. In the local coverage last night in the lead up to Tookie's execution, some of the thousands who gathered in vigil had a chance to speak their minds briefly. One such comment struck me with hope. A black woman from the East Bay flanked by her two children said (to paraphrase here) that "we now know" that we must "demand and choose leaders who represent the communities" of these everyday tragedies.

These leaders would spend more time addressing and acting on the root problems that brought us here in the first place. I think we have always known...

Violence begets violence

Schwarzenegger denies clemency for Williams

Berkeley gives the finger to House Republicans in tribute to civil rights activist

Berkeley's old City Hall renamed in honor of Maudelle Shirek She was a Civil rights activist who served 20 years on city council. In September, House Republicans had rejected Rep. Barbara Lee's attempt to name the Berkeley Post Office after Shirek, "accusing Shirek of failing to represent American values."

The coward in charge, Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who has defended Joseph McCarthy as a "great American hero." Dictating "rules" and history for California. He wouldn't DARE step foot in Berkeley. He would be too afraid to see so many liberals, progressives, greens, real conservatives, black and brown, red and asian peoples all in one place. He would be afraid to see the real America, real patriots, where people live and respect all values. King represents a very small district in Iowa. I guess your only option there is if you don't understand it, kill it. My rant is done...

Rumsfeld - Certifiable?

Is it possible that Sec. of State Donald Rumsfeld is mentally "unstable?" Stephen Pizzo of AlterNet examines the mind of the military master'mind.' It is hard to imagine that this guy is mentally ill, but near Patton-like actions crop up occasionally. It could be the DU he is inhaling...

What planet are you on, Mr Bush? (and do you care, Mr Blair?)

The Independent asks the question as thousands protest global warming and climate-change around the world in light of the Montreal conference. BushCo is taking the brunt of the anger and for good reason.

The protests were directed primarily at President George Bush, who has been assiduously trying to sabotage the protocol and has ruled out even talking about setting targets for reducing the pollution that causes global warming, once the current targets expire.

Harlan Watson - the head of the US delegation to the negotiations, being held in Montreal - announced at the opening of the meeting: "The United States is opposed to any such discussions."

Why even show up at all? What a disgrace. The rest of the world is ready to tackle the real issues affecting the planet, while BushCo protects corporate donors, not people. Of course, the only other nations involved happen to be allied to BushCo in the Iraq war. Not a coincidence. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who "is/was" committed to "put climate change at the head of the international agenda by making it one of his priorities" apparently, has backed down to possibly appease BushCo.

The Prime Minister has caused widespread confusion by appearing to back such a treaty, then to cast doubt on it

The other county is Australia, who along with the US, has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. It seems that the holdouts are caught up in a prick-waving contest and are beholden to their corporatist mentality.

Britain says that moving forward depends on getting the US and leading developing countries such as China, India and Brazil to agree to join the battle against the climate change.

Both camps have said that they will not join any new treaty unless the other does.

I left behind this type of attitude in high school?

Arnie hires a Democrat as chief of staff?

AND she was Gray Davis's second in command before the Governator beat him in the recall election. AND, she is gay. Boy, will BushCo have a snit over this one.

Support for BushCo "new" Iraq plan fizzles...

Mainstream CNN poll shows doubt in BuchCo's so-caled plan for victory in Iraq. But, you don't need a corporate rag to tell you that. With Dems starting to call out the truthfor troop pullout, and increasing GOP doubts, it will not matter how many military base only speeches BushCo gives, unless he gives a clearcut plan. Staying the course just isn't working...