fITZ!

Fitz!

Balrog @ 1

Fitz!

Your ‘0′ is flawed, ccmask. You hit CapsLock in your hasty typing.

This article by Marty Lederman talks about other modifications that have occurred recently to make the bill much more dangerous. I strongly recommend the article.

Some one on Young Turks this morning (a caller) also noted that non-foreigners (i.e. U.S. citizens) had been removed from protections, if it is claimed that they are acting in a fashion which would be seen to aid terrorism (FDL and other left wing bloggers?). Any word on this?

Nuremburg!

The last post was the topic that brought me to FDL. But your passionate defense of the Constitution and democracy is one of the reasons that I visit every day. That and the recipes, bird pictures, bad puns, candidate interviews, and The Snark. Thanks.

OT Great picture of Jane as the Elf Queen in last night’s thread somewhere, I think from OilField Guy.

To the barricades! No wait, the phones!!

Perhaps I am foolishly optimistic, but I truly hope to see Democrats speaking up forcefully against this abomination. I still can’t believe I am living during a time when our country would even contemplate stripping habeus corpus rights from those held in confinement. The Great Writ is the foundation of law and the emblem of justice. I, too, will be watching closely to see who defends the principles upon which our country was founded and who is a lickspittle to the Bush tyranny.

What you are seeing here is how torture corrupts. The reasons that democratic nations must not torture are (1) human beings must not be mistreated by the government and (2) governments that engage in mistreatment lose legitimacy. You are witnessing the loss of legitimacy and the deepest kind of corruption. The behavior by the Republicans is reprehensible and mad, and the Democrats’ response is to play office politics and act like candy asses. Do any of these officeholders understand how lacking in legitimacy the Pakistani government is (for these very offenses)? Torture has corrupted Israeli life. Torture has undermined any legitimacy the Saudi government may ever have had. Anyone looking for an impeachable offense (and why are we still looking?) should start with the torture scandals that have been going on for some five years now. Let’s talk about impeachment (Bush and Cheney) as a consequence of the wire taps and these attempts at stripping rights out of the Consitution. And if the Supreme Court upholds these insane laws, it’s time for Thomas, Scalia, and Alito to go, too.

Hi guys, been trying to catch up. This is one of those days where I dread the potential for underhandedness by the republican senate and lack of spine in our dems. Have done my telephone duty and other rituals for success, I just hope there is more honor than nastiness in that room today.

Thanks for the link, Wigwam.

OT but important. RAW has a story on ESPN using fake audience cheers and boos for political purposes. When democrats are announced at an event, they add canned boos as if it is actual audience response. When a Republican appears (most recently Bush senior) they cut out the actual boos and put on fake cheers. Also, political lingo has been added to the play by play, i.e. “He hit a hard righter down the Limbaugh part of the field. Free publicity - and worse. Remember too that ESPN is owned by ABC-Disney. You need to read this piece to get the full impact.

Kay is stupid as are so many on the Hill and in the West. She is lecturing this morning about the terrarist threat and says that Muslims should not attack other Muslims or us– people that don’t hurt them.

&%$#@@&! Get out of their countries, stop dropping bombs, stop killing their people, stop occupying their land and thirsting for their oil.

“We will stand, we will not run, we have a memory and that memory will never let terrarists take away our freedoms. We stand on the shoulders of giants who have protected freedom.”

asshat– the preznit you have celebrated all during your speech is destroying our freedoms with your help and blessing.

OT - re: bomb threat at Fitz courthouse - they expect to reopen the courthouse in about 10 mins.

OT Tony Snow is on cspan3 with the press how can I find it? help

Pam in SC– go here

http://www.c-span.org/watch/in.....mp;Code=CS

Durbin talking about the bill now.

oh and Babington has weighed in during his wapoo chat:

New Hampshire: Good morning Charles.

While watching the Senate this morning and hearing both Frist and Reid talk about their plans for the “Hamdan legislation”, I’m quite sure I heard Senators Reid and Leahy hint at a filibuster emanating from “someone”. Have you any thoughts on this?

Charles Babington: I expect no filibuster.

Listening to “On Point” this morning, they were discussing the NIE release and one of the words that kept coming up was ‘nuanced’. They were saying that the key points were so nuanced that they could be read to benefit either side of the pro or con argument for changing course on Iraq. I had to wonder if they were written that way on purpose because of possible institutional demoralization by this administration- meaning that they know now what the outcome is when the admin gets bad news so they kept it less stark and more vague and “nuanced”. just thinking about it.

But there is nothing nuanced about torture, the Geneva Conventions’ benefits to our troops on the ground around the world or the fact that a large percentage of those held in Cuba are guilty of nothing.

Nice to see Oregon’s stalwart repub, Gordon Smith, working with Leahy…how does their amendment read, does anybody know?

Thanks to Bush’s idea of nation-building, I don’t recognize the country of my birth. How can anyone be proud of a “democracy” that violates its first principles? How can any form of government believe in torture and have any other nation want to emulate it? This is the last straw for me. This is the litmus test. Barbarba Jordan, are you out there?

AT but important - a lot of information about who did or didn’t do what leading up to 9/11 is contained in the book “The Looming Tower” by Wright. I can’t recommend it highly enough. There is a lot about Our Fitz in there too, and his work convicting terrorists.

er…I mean OT but important…sorry

sporkovat @
6

Nuremburg!

Ben Ferencz!

This stayed up over six hours next to the 405 on LA: eight lanes of heavy, HEAVY traffic…

http://freewayblogger.blogspot.....-sign.html

Cardboard, paint and something to say… that’s all it takes.

Richmond @
11

OT but important. RAW has a story on ESPN using fake audience cheers and boos for political purposes.

This is a story being pushed by a diarist at dkos- don’t remember the name off the top of my head. The claim is that they do it all the time, but the specific reference is to the Saints game on monday night football, where the NFL had GHWB out to do the coin toss. Allegedly he got booed when he was announced, for a solid 10 seconds or so, and ESPN edited the boos out and played a cheer track instead… and supposedly if you listen you can hear the clicks as they switch audio tracks.

/I haven’t heard it myself, since i don’t watch teevee.

meta @ 18

Add to that: how can we call ourselves a democracy if the only voices tolerated are those who agree with the people in power? How can we call ourselves a democracy if our votes are not counted when they are not for the people in power? how can we call ourselves a democracy when anyone can be jailed, without charges, with no way to present a defense, and solely on the word of someone who has never met them, has probably no credible evidence (and possibly no evidence at all) and may be doing it opurely for political purposes?

That isn’t my country. That’s its enemies. Or so I was taught.

Durbin talking about the amnesty offered in the bill… he’s doing great. Bringing up Gonzales and his part in torture and his part in trying to gut the war crimes act.

Thanks Angie - for the updates.

scarlet p. @
22

This stayed up over six hours next to the 405 on LA: eight lanes of heavy, HEAVY traffic…

http://freewayblogger.blogspot.....-sign.html

Cardboard, paint and something to say… that’s all it takes.

Scarlet P, you rock! The 405 is a parking lot for much of the day. Plenty of time for folks to sit and stew about that AND the traffic.

I would like the democrats to describe habeas corpus not just say how important it is

I’d like to see them say things like;

suspending haebeus corpus means the president can create a law after a person is arrested, it can be any law at all, and the peson can actually get tried for doing something that was completely benign and within the law before he was arrested

for instance, a man could be arrested, and if they couldn’t charge him with something they could invent a laq like “you are not allowed to pray on sunday”

the person might have never prayed on sunday since the law was written, however he could be charged with the law if he prayed on sunday before it was written”

that was just thrown together, I would like to see more graphic descriptions of habeas corpus and I think it’ss important to put a face on why we don’t want habeas corpus suspended

Durbin now addressing habeas corpus.

He’s eviscerating the bill and making the case that everyone here has been so passionate about. me to me– Durbin is doing just that. Now bringing up Sullivan and Hutson testimony.

Great job, scarlet p– thank you.

Awesome — Durbin is hitting habeas, and hitting it hard. Bravo!

OT sort of

Thank you to me to me for pointing out where the NIE excerpts could be found at rawstory last night.

Bush released 3 pages out of 9 of the Key Judgments of the 30 page April 2006 NIE entitled Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States”. While this is a fragment of a fragment, it is nevertheless a very strange document.

About the central contention that the Iraq war is making terrorism worse:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

* The Iraq conflict has become the ’cause celebre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

First, the document uses preferentially the term “jihadist” which appears to have up to 5 different meanings: al Qaeda, terrorist, Iraqi insurgent, anyone who self-identifies as a jihadist, or any militant or extreme Moslem. Sloppy is a nice word for this kind of conflation.

Second, while the style of this passage could best be described as turgid, it is clear that Iraq creating a new generation of terrorists is probably not a good thing. And while I guess it would be nice if the perceived terrorists leaving Iraq were perceived by their perceivers to have perceivably failed, the thought could have been more succinctly expressed by the adage “If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.” The last sentence which is key could also use a bit of clarification. It is saying: given current conditions, terrorism stemming from the American invasion in Iraq will grow for the foreseeable future.

Third if you were wondering what the underlying factors mentioned above were. They are:

(1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness;
(2) the Iraq ‘jihad’
(3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and
(4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims

Just another wild ass guess here but I’m thinking our involvement in the first three go far in explaining the fourth, and why we are unlikely to make any headway anytime soon.

But the NIE reports that the “jihadists” or GIBH have their own weaknesses:

dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts,
the limited appeal of the jihadists’ radical ideology,
the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and
criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

I’m thinking the preparers of the NIE decided if we have 4 weaknesses then the GIBH should have 4 too. All of these points are, to say the least, problematic. If the GIBH are banking on “the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts,” then this may prove their Achilles heel because outside of conflicts involving Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan and tensions with Iran, Sudan, and Somalia I just don’t see any. As for the “limited appeal of the jihadists’ radical ideology,” I must agree except for maybe Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, and I suppose Egypt and Syria if the Moslem Brotherhood was ever allowed to compete in an open election. Thank goodness we don’t have to include Iraq and Iran in this group because they are majority Shia and the jihadi shtik is mostly a Sunni thing. Next point: let’s face it we have made it much harder with our cowboy diplomacy for voices of moderation in the Muslim world to speak up and have any credibility. The last point has some validity but has to be taken with a large grain of salt. The Algerians, Lebanese and Afghanis have all had long and bloody civil conflicts. The Algerian one ended only a couple of years ago and was especially brutal. The Afghani one is ongoing. The Iraq-Iran war had about a million dead. And, of course, there is Darfur. So the idea of Moslem on Moslem violence is not exactly unheard of and reaction to it is let’s just say variable.

Two other minor points caught my attention. One was a call for democratic reform which would stabilize countries and be used by GIBH to destabilize them. The second was that Syria and Iran were labeled the chief sponsors of state terrorism. This seems terribly unfair to the Saudis (the chief financiers of terrorism and religious extremism and the home of 15 of the 19 911 hijackers) and the Pakistanis (the creators and continuing supporters of the Taliban) who have done so much to earn this designation.

* GIBH by the way is Guys in Black Hats. There is no reason for me to use it but then there was no point in the NIE using the jihadist terminology either.

Yay — Durbin just hit the double standard of American soliders being held to account for interrogation techniques, but high level civil and military officials not being held to account for giving the orders. About damn time someone brought that up again.

“These provisions are inconsistent with American values and they put our troops at risk.”

thanks for the live blogging (can’t get to the tv)

OT

Olbermann’s Monday night ratings …..look at Keith go :

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvn.....1.asp#more

Digby is really pissed about this bill. His major point is that the bill is going to pass and nobody in congress really knows what is in it. Bush’s are making changes,”in the middle of the night”. An example; both sides agreed to allow evidence seized outside the United States, without a warrant, to be admitted at trial. In the latest mark-up “Outside the United States” has been omitted. Is everyone ready for the 2:AM knock on the door?

P J Evans @
24

meta @ 18

Add to that: how can we call ourselves a democracy if the only voices tolerated are those who agree with the people in power? How can we call ourselves a democracy if our votes are not counted when they are not for the people in power? how can we call ourselves a democracy when anyone can be jailed, without charges, with no way to present a defense, and solely on the word of someone who has never met them, has probably no credible evidence (and possibly no evidence at all) and may be doing it opurely for political purposes?

That isn’t my country. That’s its enemies. Or so I was taught.

The Democrats are playing the role of loyal opposition with too mjuch loyalty and way too little opposition. In fact, I’m beginning to think that they too have been taken over by neocons.

I called Warner again, for all the good it’ll do.

Another argument to make, beyond the basic one about how appalling it is to try to turn the clock back centuries on our judicial system, is that this will not serve justice. Every time they declare how they’re going to deal with prisoners, the Bush Administration makes a big show of how it’s important to act quickly so that “justice” can be meted out. Then they push through something so blatantly unconstitutional that it’s guaranteed to be tied up in the courts for years. (They’re trying to end-run that this time by declaring that the courts have no jurisdiction, but that is sure to be litigated itself.)

If you have the misfortune to talk to any right-wingers, ask them what they have against the well-established Uniform Code of Military Justice, and why do they think that judicial procedures written in crayon on the back of an envelope serves us better?

rayne

thanx for that link two floors down, that helps

what I really need is richard clarkes version of why he said clinton never gave bush the plans he spoke about

this is obscure…I have the information I need to demonstrate the detailed plan WAS given, so that’s not a problem

I did a google search and there are links where clarke seemed to say Bush wasn’t given the plan

they are snippets, though and I can’t track down the original claim, the context, nor if clarke explained the statement

what I think they are distorting is the fact that clarke said “bush never had a clear plan”, and actually using that to claim clarke said they never gave bush a clear plan

gonna be tough to dig this one out

thanx for the link and the help

From Matt Yglesias:

“…the United States now presents itself as what amounts to the globe’s largest and most powerful rogue state — a nuclear-armed superpower capable of projecting military force to the furthest corners of the earth, acting utterly without legal or moral constraint whenever the president proclaims it necessary. The idea that striking such a posture on the world stage will serve our long-term interests is daft. American power has, for decades, rested crucially on the sense that the United States can be trusted and relied upon, on the belief that we use our power primarily to defend the community of liberal states and the liberal rules by which they conduct themselves rather than to undermine them.

An America prepared to casually toss out the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian diplomacy — along with basic human decency and the rule of law as side helpings — is not a country others are going to want to cooperate with. It will constitute a threat to their own interests and values. Nor will it be a country blessed with a lot of accurate intelligence. As Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has pointed out, an intelligence service shot-through with demands that it torture people “degenerates into a playground for sadists,” the service itself “an army of butchers” skilled at terrorizing its victims but hardly capable of unraveling complicated investigations.

It’s a grim future brought to us by grim and deranged men — by people who seem to have developed an unhealthy level of admiration for America’s enemies. (They want the country they run to transform itself into a facsimile of its evil adversaries.) It’s a future in which it may become increasingly hard for decent citizens of this country to say truthfully that they’re proud to be Americans.”

Everyone reading this needs to call their Senators and Representatives. Beg them to stop this. It is unAmerican. It is counter to American interests. And it is immoral.

called DiFi’s office - all the lines are busy…! will try again later.

Great amendment, PJ.

I really don’t understand this. We need one Democratic senator to mount of filibuster. We need the rest to simply not show up for a cloture vote. It’s bad enough that most of the Dems are spineless. What I don’t understand is how they can all show up and vote for cloture (a la Alito) on something like this.

Hugh @
31

OT sort of

Thank you to me to me for pointing out where the NIE excerpts could be found at rawstory last night.

here’s what everyone is missing as far as the report

first, there are VERY few positives in the report, just about every positive are suggestions how to proceed, NOT claiming theyy are succeeding

but MORE important then that

ANY positive HAS NOTHING to do with Iraq, EVERY mention of Iraq points out the negative effects

so if the president wants to claim this nie says things are going swimmingly, he cannot possibly say this nie finds any good from his initiative in Iraq

JHunsecker @ 9

You are witnessing the loss of legitimacy and the deepest kind of corruption. The behavior by the Republicans is reprehensible and mad, and the Democrats’ response is to play office politics and act like candy asses.

A great point to make- this sort of thing worsens the legitimacy crisis of declining states - and with less legitimacy they have to use more repression and on down into terminal corruption and despotism.

Such moral rot poisons all institutions that enable it - the Congress- the worse than useless Dem Senators like Obama who pretend to have a moral influence on their political calculations, the whole Dem leadership, and, eventually, the Judiciary, if they capitulate to such outrages.

Then the American people will have the same relationship to their state apparatus as the Pakistanis, or the subjects of the old Soviet Union. At least then we’ll know where we stand.

>>added to say that at least I can be a little proud of one of my public servants from Illinois, I’m glad to hear Durbin hammering the outrages in this bill… as of yesterday Obama’s people say he has no position… which to me means he supports it

wigwam at 21: Mr. Ferencz advocates steps to replace the “rule of force with the rule of law.”

too bad this country is now doing the opposite…sad.

I’m hearing Gail Shattuck (CSMonitor) on radio saying that Dems will not do a “show stopper” on the bill, they will object, but will not filibuster. More when I find it.

Hugh @31 - wow, thanks for the summary. That’s almost a post all by its own self, huh?

Wonder what’s on the other 6 pages?

angie @
29

Durbin now addressing habeas corpus.

He’s eviscerating the bill and making the case that everyone here has been so passionate about. me to me– Durbin is doing just that. Now bringing up Sullivan and Hutson testimony.

Great job, scarlet p– thank you.

thanx for that info, gives me confort, I am not near a tv where I can watch and this conncetion is too slow to stream

Beyond habeas, this provision(in the Senate bill) seems to directly violate the Constitition:

S 3929.108, INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT.—
(A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Article III:

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made (emphasis mine), or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

No?

They can pass anything they want, but, Constitutionally, Bush does not get the last word on treaties. (until he gets that 5th vote he needs for coronation with another right-wing appointment).
_

leftinoregon @ 17, I am an Oregonian too, and this is the first time I can recall Gordon Smith doing something worthwhile.

OldSchool @ 40

called DiFi’s office - all the lines are busy…! will try again later.

I got through to DiFi and Boxer. Told them if they didnt AT LEAST LOOK LIKE they were opposing this legislation they would help suppress voter turnout among the Dem base on Nov. 7.

I’m hoping Harry Reid has a trick up his sleeve. It’s not hard to trick Frist.

Pelosi making the point about making convictions stick. Five years have gone by and not one planner of 9/11 has been brought to trial. The bill doesn’t honor their oath of office to protect and defend the constitution.

Wigwam @ 36

P J Evans @
24

meta @ 18

Add to that: how can we call ourselves a democracy if the only voices tolerated are those who agree with the people in power? How can we call ourselves a democracy if our votes are not counted when they are not for the people in power? how can we call ourselves a democracy when anyone can be jailed, without charges, with no way to present a defense, and solely on the word of someone who has never met them, has probably no credible evidence (and possibly no evidence at all) and may be doing it opurely for political purposes?

That isn’t my country. That’s its enemies. Or so I was taught.

The Democrats are playing the role of loyal opposition with too mjuch loyalty and way too little opposition. In fact, I’m beginning to think that they too have been taken over by neocons.

I look at your country from my country and it is obvious from here that the Repubs and the Dems are owned by the same people. Two sides are needed to preserve the illusion of a real fight, as in pro wrestling. Keeps the people busy while the business gets done.

Hijacked D’s and R’s may look different but that’s because of the different ways the two parties are structured. Yes, folks, believe me, *both* parties have been hijacked. Think about it and see if that doesn’t make a lot of things make sense.

So, keep the Internet free, make the elections real, then the people of the United States take back both parties. This may take a while.

Also, I was wondering. The effable Sen Ted Toobz was able to put an anonymous hold on a bill, does that ploy apply in a case like this?

me to me @ 38

rayne

thanx for that link two floors down, that helps

what I really need is richard clarkes version of why he said clinton never gave bush the plans he spoke about

this is obscure…I have the information I need to demonstrate the detailed plan WAS given, so that’s not a problem

I did a google search and there are links where clarke seemed to say Bush wasn’t given the plan

they are snippets, though and I can’t track down the original claim, the context, nor if clarke explained the statement

what I think they are distorting is the fact that clarke said “bush never had a clear plan”, and actually using that to claim clarke said they never gave bush a clear plan

gonna be tough to dig this one out

thanx for the link and the help

I don’t quite understand what you’re saying, but here’s the link to Richard Clarke’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission. Maybe you’ll find what you’re looking for there.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/.....tement.pdf

Trent Lott is auditioning for the GOP leadership position again. SIGH Although watching he and Mitch McConnell tap dance around each other is amusing, if nothing else. (I met McConnell a couple of times when I was in college during his early tenure in the Senate — his daughter lived in my house at Smith — and we had a couple of great debates about the UN and the first Gulf War over breakfast and dinner, respectively, during a parent’s weekend one year. *g* Yes, I was like this in my early college years, too.)

me to me #38 — have you combed through Clarke’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission?

Transcript from CNN.com (can’t vouchsafe accuracy or completeness)

I see mention of a December 2000 document. And it is because the Bush administration was both inept and obtuse about the threat of terrorism that Clarke asked for a reassignment to cybersecurity under the Bush administration.

I also note this bit from the transcript:

TIMOTHY ROEMER, 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Clarke. I want to thank you, as I start my questions, for your 30 years of public service to the American people. I want to thank you for your sworn testimony before the 9/11 commission: over 15 hours.

And I really want to say, Mr. Clarke, that there are a lot of distractions out there today. The books, a lot of news media, a lot of accusations flying back and forth.

I want you to concentrate, to the degree you can, on the memos, on the e-mail, on the strategy papers and on the time that we’re tasked to looking at on this 9/11 commission, between 1998 and September the 11th.

You coordinated counterterrorism policy in both the Clinton and the Bush administrations. I want to know, first of all: Was fighting al Qaeda a top priority for the Clinton administration from 1998 to the year 2001? How high a priority was it in that Clinton administration during that time period?

CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration — certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don’t know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.

ROEMER: With respect to the Bush administration, from the time they took office until September 11th, 2001, you had much to deal with: Russia, China, G-8, Middle East. How high a priority was fighting al Qaeda in the Bush administration?

CLARKE: I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.

Well, president Bush himself says as much in his interview with Bob Woodward in the book “Bush at War.” He said, “I didn’t feel a sense of urgency.”

George Tenet and I tried very hard to create a sense of urgency by seeing to it that intelligence reports on the al Qaeda threat were frequently given to the president and other high-level officials. And there was a process under way to address al Qaeda. But although I continued to say it was an urgent problem, I don’t think it was ever treated that way.

ROEMER: You have said in many ways — you’ve issued some blistering attacks on the Bush administration. But you’ve not held those criticisms from the Clinton administration, either. We heard from Mr. Berger earlier that you were critical of the Clinton administration on two areas: not providing aid to the Northern Alliance, and not going after the human conveyor belts of jihadists coming out of the sanctuaries in Afghanistan.

Are there more in the Clinton administration years — the USS Cole, the response there?

CLARKE: Well, I think first of all, Mr. Berger is right to say that almost everything I ever asked for in the way of support from him or from president Clinton, I got. We did enormously increase the counterterrorism budget of the federal government, initiated many programs, including one that is now called Homeland Security.

Mr. Berger is also right to note that I wanted a covert action program to aid Afghan factions to fight the Taliban, and that was not accomplished. He’s also right to note that on several occasions, including after the attack on the Cole, I suggested that we bomb all of the Taliban and al Qaeda infrastructure, whether or not it would succeed in killing bin Laden. I thought that was the wrong way of looking at the problem. I think the answer is essentially Mr. Berger got it right.

ROEMER: OK. With my 15 minutes, let’s move into the Bush administration.

On January 25th, we’ve seen a memo that you’ve written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals’ review of al Qaeda. You include helping the Northern Alliance, covert aid, significant new ‘02 budget authority to help fight al Qaeda and a response to the USS Cole. You attach to this document both the Delenda Plan of 1998 and a strategy paper from December 2000.

Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? And how does this affect your time frame for dealing with these important issues?

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals’ meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn’t meet urgently in January or February.

Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of al Qaeda as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address al Qaeda in the context of all of those inter-related issues.

That process probably ended, I think in July of 2001. So we were ready for a principals meeting in July. But the principals calendar was full and then they went on vacation, many of them in August, so we couldn’t meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.

ROEMER: So as the Bush administration is carefully considering from bottom up a full review of fighting terrorism, what happens to these individual items like a response to the USS Cole, flying the Predator? Why aren’t these decided in a shorter time frame as they’re also going through a larger policy review of how this policy affects Pakistan and other countries — important considerations, but why can’t you do both?

CLARKE: The deputies committee, its chairman, Mr. Hadley, and others thought that all these issues were sufficiently inter-related, that they should be taken up as a set of issues, and pieces of them should not be broken off.

ROEMER: Did you agree with that?

CLARKE: No, I didn’t agree with much of that. ROEMER: Were you frustrated by this process?

CLARKE: I was sufficiently frustrated that I asked to be reassigned.

ROEMER: When was this?

CLARKE: Probably May or June. Certainly no later than June.

[emphasis mine] In other words, whatever work Plame did with Brewster-Jennings was bundled up with everything else around the Middle East and Asia…were they already scrapping everything in place to work on WMD proliferation and terrorism because they were already allocating all their resources and attention to the results of Cheney’s Energy Task Force?

Is that why WHIG member Rice shelved the 13-page strategy-report from the Clinton Administration — because she already had other marching orders?

Trent Lott says the SCOTUS was wrong with Hamdan decision, the admin is right and yes they got some things wrong– but they are human, after all.

Lott backing the scumbags and their filthy legislation.

(no, they are not human at all and neither are you)

railing on the dems now…

we are dealing with the most vicious killers in the world– they are baaaad people. (What about the innocents?)

Now we are worrying about the niceties about how to treat them.

Moderator(s) - please close the open italics tag appearing somewhere between comments 50 and 55.

SharonW @ 52

me to me @ 38

rayne

I don’t quite understand what you’re saying, but here’s the link to Richard Clarke’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission. Maybe you’ll find what you’re looking for there.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/.....tement.pdf

the claims are that richard lied before that testimony, that he said they never gave bush the plan

it’s hard to explain and when the person I’m having the argument sources his claim I’ll ask again with a better explanation

thanx for the help

Wow, McGovern is telling it like it is! Bush has broken the law. Exec branch has operated under a bizarre set of legal priviledges, despite warning from our best and brightest experts.

could somebody please close the italics tag

thanx in advance

thanks for drawing a line in the sand, christy.
a different take on why this is happening now. follow the money, as they say…

lhp (wherever you are) - Out here where pawpaws grow we had that moment of silence with you. If you allow for the roar of the kings river and southern breeze rustling through oak leaves. Nothing like rising from a few moments of silence to news of a bomb threat.

I never fully realized how much I believe in our constitution and the rule of it’s law until the past few months. So pardon me for being a bit sad today for those who have sworn to protect and defend the constitution are the very souls who may fail us before our eyes. Isn’t this an unarmed coup?
Over the years I have experienced personal violations of liberty such as assault, burglary of my own home, false arrest and short detainment and other invasive searches of my property. They make one feel powerless and violated and carry mistrust and anger, often for those who we need to trust most. I have never been through a trial or had to plea for anything except no contest for protesting wars and minor traffic violations. I share these experiences so their is a mild understanding of my comparison to the sense of violation I feel when I say today I feel like I have been punched in the gut by my President and a line of Congressmen are awaiting their turn. I want to vomit
As a fellow citizen who finds great comfort here in the lake I must share how ill at ease I am. I will have to reconsider my allegiance to a country who stands for something I no longer understand nor may want to. Life is short and the terms of battling for liberty in our world may have changed to an unacceptable playing field. The price of dissent and ease in which dissenters will now be able to be labeled unlawful combatants, judged, tortured and imprisoned for ideas alone is to high.
Thank goodness I have no children though I mourn for the future of those who face this kind of world. I tried in my small way. Now those peaceful methods I am afraid will carry an awfully high risk against even our illusions of liberty.
I don’t intend to give up completely but face the new paradigm with an understanding it may be time for me to shut up, move on and pretend things are alright while waiting for the battle tactics to change and enough people develop an understanding of just what is happening. If that awakening happens in my lifetime, and I hope it does, I will embrace that day with renewed hope and a clear understanding of what a citizen of the world must fight for. Ghandi said it takes one percent so maybe it will not take to long.
I hope I am wrong and Congress will show some backbone. Looks like today is another huge tipping point.

Christy,

Thank you so much for this passionate post. You always inspire me to do more, and let me tell you, I need a kick in the pants these days.

Snowe & Collins are not making statements about where they stand on the bill. I almost started crying while talking to their staffers. They sounded a bit more sober than they usually do and were attentive and responsive to my position.

I hope that they get how important this is.

As dear Norske would say, “Keep the faith and pass the ammunition”.

I think the tag is open from hotflahes post

I think it’s my bad. I’m sorry.

thanks for drawing a line in the sand, christy. we should all keep a list of pro-torture “democrats.”

i’d like to add a different perspective to the discussion, shameless blogwhore that i am. have you been to a prison lately?

Tag should be fixed — everyone refresh and let me know. MAC users see it differently from us PC folks — so I can’t tell if I’ve closed the one that was causing the rest of you problems until a MAC person refreshes and updates me. Thanks.

Do not come calling for my support if you cannot hold the Constitution and this nation’s founding principles in the highest regard.

This is the only thing that Senators and congressmen swear an oath to do, and yet you’d never know it to see them in action these days.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement, Christy. Defending the Constitution is the thing we need them to do before anything else, because it’s the Constitution that makes debates about all the other issues possible.

colorado bob @ 34

OT

Olbermann’s Monday night ratings …..look at Keith go :

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvn.....1.asp#more

YOWSA! That’s the highest I’ve ever seen!!!!

BTW, I bookmarked that site last November when you linked it here, thanks ; )

Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 9:27 am (#56)

Moderator(s) - please close the open italics tag appearing somewhere between comments 50 and 55.

I’m starting to think it’s a good idea to start every comment with the closing tags for italics and emphasis. I almost allowed italics to run amuck when I was editing a comment and accidently removed a bracket on one of the tags. Fortunately, I noticed it in the preview.

Back to normal on my Mac. Again, apologies. I apparently accidently double clicked the button?

JJHunsecker - I agree, but I don’t find any hope of returning morality and respect to government with a party whose leadership can’t or won’t do anything about this.

I posted awhile ago what I think is going on with the 1997 dating and how I thin that put the fix in for some of this, but it is horrible horrible thing what the Democrats are doing now. They are parents standing to the side while their child is raped and tortured in front of them while they munch on Cheetos and say, Oh well, I can’t do anything about it.

Barely a voice among them. Thank God for Leahy (who, btw, singlehandedly sat the Haynes nomination for a couple of years).

Here is Louise Slaughter’s floor speech from Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....104659/485

Email to my Congressman’s staffer:

——————-

Hi,

I wanted to bring out a point I noticed while reading the NIE released yesterday that I don’t imagine will get quite the play as the Iraq side of it. Here is one of the final paragraphs (emphasis added):

Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

And from yesterday’s New York Times:

In another, the original compromise said that evidence seized “outside the United States” could be admitted in court even if it had been obtained without a search warrant, a provision Republicans and Democrats agreed was necessary to deal with the unusual circumstances of seizing evidence on the battlefield.

The bill introduced Monday dropped the words “outside the United States,” which Democrats said meant that prosecutors could ignore American legal standards on search warrants within the country. The bill also broadened the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant, from anyone “engaged in hostilities against the United States” to include anyone who “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.”

So the NIE says leftists in the Internet age could be a threat like terrorists, and the detainee bill is broadening its definitions to be sure to include as many people as possible, including citizens. These aren’t just any two random documents showing an incoherent government, they’re the two highest priority documents coming out of the White House this week. I’m working very hard not to connect any dots here and anything you can say to give me a good reason not to do so would be appreciated.

At the very very least, as a nation we need enough time to understand any possible unintended consequences before passing something like this detainee bill. It’s just not OK to rush it through in the last two days before adjournment. Important consequences could get missed.

———————

Her response did not give me any good reason not to connect the dots.

MacNormal here Christy.

BTW, our new and improved spam filter now hates a large city in Illinois, famous for jazz and ribs. Please use the ever-handy * when referring to it (Ms. Dyke, you may have to asterix-ize your nom de blog).

Patty Murray giving us 5 things she feels need hearings, starting with budget shortfall and lack of planning for veteran’s health care. GAO was asked to investigate and report damns the VA and the Pentagon.

I never talk about this, but my blood is boiling. My father, who was buried in a veteran’s cemetary with military ceremony 4 years ago, was held and tortured for 3 years as a POW in the Battle of Bataan. He would have never been in favor of any of this atrosity. He and so very many others suffered to protect our founding systems of government, not to violate them ad hoc.

I spoke with my the offices of my senators and my congressman this morning. I checked at the DNC website to see if they had anything protesting this atrocity to the American Constitution, but it was only the comments to the blog where I found anything like the spirit I see here at the Lake.

Eureka Springs, you put it very eloquently. My most cherished beliefs as an American–that we are truly a nation of laws–are being overturned by this rogue administration and the craven national legislature that is rubber-stamping this. The Constitution is our most precious national treasure. And now they are hooking it up to wires, standing it on a box, and have place a hood over its head.

I am ashamed–of my party, of my government.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 53

Trent Lott is auditioning for the GOP leadership position again. SIGH Although watching he and Mitch McConnell tap dance around each other is amusing, if nothing else. (I met McConnell a couple of times when I was in college during his early tenure in the Senate — his daughter lived in my house at Smith — and we had a couple of great debates about the UN and the first Gulf War over breakfast and dinner, respectively, during a parent’s weekend one year. *g* Yes, I was like this in my early college years, too.)

So was he still a twitchy little widget or had he already managed to work his way up from greasy to unctuous?

Let us look again at some familiar words, as I quote from the second and third paragraphs of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution:

2. The privilege of the write of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

3. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

For additional information about bills of attainder, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

For additional information about ex post facto laws, please click on this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

meta @ 41

thank you. I try, but I’m not in the same league with most of y’all. I have to admit, I never thought I could be this POd for this long and still be functioning. (Well, mostly functioning. Hayfever is trying to get me.)

Professor Foland quotes his email:

The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age…

The hair on the back of my neck rose ominously yesterday when I heard SnowJob mention the internets as being one of the proximate causes of the rise in terr’ism across the globe.

The dots connect and the picture is emerging. Unfortunately, Mr. and Mrs. Guy Next door won’t believe it until it’s too late.

I’m sorry Eureka Springs. Hang in there.

Thank goodness for Patty Murray.

well, I believe the process is under way to eliminate “the internets”

we might indeed be lost to whatever they want to tell us.

Rayne @ 55

Transcript from CNN.com (can’t vouchsafe accuracy or completeness):
9/11 Commission

CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration — certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don’t know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration. ….

CLARKE: I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue….

CLARKE: …almost everything I ever asked for in the way of support from him or from president Clinton, I got. We did enormously increase the counterterrorism budget of the federal government, initiated many programs, including one that is now called Homeland Security.

ROEMER: OK. …. let’s move into the Bush administration. On January 25th, we’ve seen a memo that you’ve written to Dr. Rice urgently asking for a principals’ review of al Qaeda. ….Do you get a response to this urgent request for a principals meeting on these? ….

CLARKE: I did get a response, and the response was that in the Bush administration I should, and my committee, counterterrorism security group, should report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-Cabinet level committee, and not to the principals and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for me to be asking for a principals’ meeting. Instead, there would be a deputies meeting.

ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn’t meet urgently in January or February.
Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of al Qaeda as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan…. That process probably ended, I think in July of 2001. So we were ready for a principals meeting in July. But the principals calendar was full and then they went on vacation, many of them in August, so we couldn’t meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September. ….

CLARKE: I was sufficiently frustrated that I asked to be reassigned.

HOLY SHIT! I had forgotten about this. Thanks for bringing it back into view!

I called Kaye Bai