The Continuum of Sound

The continuum of sound can't be
out of place. Form foams old man
foamer, the beauty of airports,
what do poets know of capital anyway?
Tarry by the slack pile until it has
the quality of truth, a place with
no single word rises around us. It's
a novel about cities in wartime.
Freedom imitates tyranny, thief liquor
rugby spleen. All my inventing is
a complete disaster. More room for
necks and another chest. Now here
is the cut-out lake. Writing about
others as if they were nature. Each
word is cheapened in the air. Dewey
eyed playback to where the I goes.
Roughnecks have received insufficient
attention. The world is full and doesn't
ask for more. I waddled and took myself
out walking. A bulbous token of sex and
crafstmanship. She knew something of
the ethics of memory. Bad vibe job market
in good vibe media surround. Me on my
head, that is my body. Trajectory
itself another seminal structure.


[Lines (mis)overheard at the MLA Poetry Extravaganza Part I, Wednesday December 28, Four Seasons Hotel, Washington DC -- from poems by Joel Bettridge, Louis Cabri, Joshua Clover, Michael Cross, Brent Cunningham, Richard Deming, Jeff Derksen, Patrick Durgin, Bill Howe, Nancy Kuhl, Aaron Kunin, Nicole Markotic, Camille Martin, Laura Moriarty, Lorenzo Thomas, Al Nielsen, Bob Perelman, Joan Retallack, Linda Russo, Jennifer Scappetone, Susan Schultz, Rodrigo Toscano, Shanxing Wang, & Tyrone Williams.]

Having difficulty working up a response to the latest piece of wisdom from Bill Kristol -- he's so profoundly wrong it's hard to know where to start.

In the meantime, a nice write-up of the MLA Poetry Extravaganza Part I (Wednesday Night at the Four Seasons) at Chris Murray's Tex Files (see her December 29 entry). And a nice round of photos by Kap.

My big score at the MLA Book Exhibit was a copy of Ulla Dydo's Gertrude Stein The Language That Rises for five bucks. Bought two, gave one to Alan Golding.

Peter Slevin on John Yoo

From tmorange
Sent Monday, December 26, 2005 12:03 pm
To letters@washpost.com
Subject Peter Slevin on John Yoo

Dear Editors,

Peter Slevin paints and intriguing portrait of right-wing lawyer John Yoo, who writes memos for the White House approving of torture and secret domestic spying programs ("Scholar Stands by Post-9/11 Writings On Torture," Monday, December 26, 2005; Page A03).

"Yoo thinks his critics should understand that he offered legal advice, while others made policy," Slevin writes. This argument is nothing more than a feeble attempt to avoid responsibilty for the positions Yoo advocates. Legal advice enables policy.

"Yoo traces his convictions in no small part to his parents, and Ronald Reagan," Slevin adds. "His father and mother are psychiatrists who grew up in Korea during the Japanese occupation and the Korean War." For someone who "[came] of age in an anti-communist household," however, it's sad to see how the years of careful grooming and tutelage under this country's bastions of right-wing ideology -- courting the Federalist Society and the American Enterprise Institute, clerkships
with Clarence Thomas and Laurence Silberman, squash games with Antonin Scalia --
have yielded an authoritatianism that any reasonable anti-communist would categorically reject.

"Impeachment Nonsense" (Krauthammer, 12/23

From tmorange
Sent Saturday, December 24, 2005 9:42 pm
To letters@washpost.com
Cc letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Subject "Impeachment Nonsense"

Dear Editors,

"Everyone's doing it," so we are told, was the mantra of "liberal permissiveness" lo these past forty years. And such is the topsy-turvey world of today that Charles Krauthammer leads the chorus of right-wing faithful in celebrating a permissiveness, or shall I say a shameless promiscuity, of executive power the likes of which this country has not seen since Richard Nixon. ("Impeachment Nonsense," Friday, December 23, 2005; Page A21.) So goes the John Schmidt defense: every president since Carter has reserved the right to claim that executive power trumps FISA.

This is one legal opinion, just one among an increasing consensus that this president broke the law. Even at the fringes of the Kool Aid Left one finds Krauthammer's colleague George F. Will arguing that "In peace and in war, but especially in the latter, presidents have pressed their institutional advantages to expand their powers to act without Congress. This president might look for occasions to stop pressing" ("Why Didn't He Ask Congress?," The Washington Post, December 20, 2005; Page A31). One things is clear: FISA requires a court-issued warrant to conduct domestic surveillance, and this president executed a secret plan to circumvent that law.

So, Mr. Krauthammer, even though it's hard not to demagogue something when it walks like a broken law and talks like a broken law, legal minds will differ. And if this president did not break the law, he will emerge from his impeachment trial an innocent man.

Defending the indefensible (Hume, Fox 12/20)

From tmorange
Sent Saturday, December 24, 2005 1:10 pm
To Brit.Hume@foxnews.com
Subject Defending the indefensible

Dear Mr. Hume,

In the "Political Grapevine" segment of the December 20 edition of Fox
News' Special Report with Brit Hume, you reported the following.

Despite claims to the contrary, President Bush is not the first
to use or assert executive power to authorize warrantless
searches. "National Review" notes that President Clinton's deputy
attorney general Jamie Gorelick told the Senate Intelligence
Committee in 1994 that an executive order signed by President
Reagan provided for warrantless searches against a foreign power
or an agent of a foreign power saying, quote, "the Department of
Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president
has inherent authority to conduct warrantless, physical searches
for foreign intelligence purposes."

As you and Byron York must know, "warrentless, physical searches" are
not the same as electronic surveillance. Domestic wiretapping has for
27 years been governed by FISA, which specifically requires court
orders. Thus, the claim made by Mr. York in his December 20 National
Review piece ("Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant
Searches") that you reported is misleading at best.

Moreover, Gorelick clearly stated in her testimony that electronic
surveillance, such as the wiretapping Bush authorized, was governed by
FISA:

In FISA, the privacy interests of individuals are protected not
by mandatory notice but through in-depth oversight of foreign
intelligence electronic surveillance by all three branches of
government and by expanded minimization procedures.

In other words, she makes exactly the opposite point you and Mr. York
want her and Clinton to make.

How amusing to see the right wing maintaining a tenacious clutch on
its "Blame Clinton First" strategy. Unfortunately, your efforts to
defend this president's impeachable offenses are indefensible.

P.S. You might do better to take the position of your colleague George
Will who for once in his life takes a position that is almost on the
right track: "In peace and in war, but especially in the latter,
presidents have pressed their institutional advantages to expand their
powers to act without Congress. This president might look for
occasions to stop pressing" ("Why Didn't He Ask Congress?," The
Washington Post, December 20, 2005; Page A31).

Defending the indefensible (York, National Review Online 12/20)

From tmorange
Sent Saturday, December 24, 2005 12:45 pm
To byork@nationalreview.com
Subject Defending the indefensible

Mr. York,

In your December 20 piece "Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-
Warrant Searches," you twist the record to in an effort to defend this
president's illegal domestic spying program.

When then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the
Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, she stated
specifically that the executive branch has "inherent authority to
conduct warrantless physical searches." As you must know, "physical
searches" are not the same as electronic surveillance. Domestic
wiretapping has for 27 years been governed by FISA, which specifically
requires court orders. Moreover, Gorelick clearly stated in her
testimony that electronic surveillance, such as the wiretapping Bush
authorized, was governed by FISA at the time:

"In FISA, the privacy interests of individuals are protected not by
mandatory notice but through in-depth oversight of foreign intelligence
electronic surveillance by all three branches of government and by
expanded minimization procedures."

In other words, she makes exactly the opposite point you want her and
Clinton. How amusing to see the right wing maintaining a tenacious
clutch on its "Blame Clinton First" strategy. Unfortunately, your
efforts to defend this president's impeachable offenses are
indefensible.

Defending the indefensible (Lowry, Fox 12/20)

From tmorange
Sent Saturday, December 24, 2005 12:29 pm
To comments.lowry@nationalreview.com
Subject Defending the indefensible

Mr. Lowry,

On the December 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, you claimed
that the Clinton administration had asserted "exactly the same
authority" that President Bush has cited in defense of his illegal
domestic spying program. Unfortunately, your claim is flat wrong. When
then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the
Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, she stated that the
executive branch has "inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches."

"Physical searches" are not "exactly the same" as electronic
surveillance, and you are wrong to claim they are. Domestic
wiretapping has for 27 years been governed by FISA, which specifically
requires court orders. Your efforts to defend this president's
impeachable offenses are indefensible.

"Bush Vigorously Defends Domestic Spying" (NCNews Online, 12/

From tmorange
Sent Saturday, December 24, 2005 12:10 pm
To media@ncnewsonline.com
Subject "Bush Vigorously Defends Domestic Spying" by Terence Hunt

Reporting on the December 19 press conference during which this
president defended his secret program to spy on American citizens
without a warrent, Terence Hunt wrote: "Bush said the electronic eavesdropping program, conducted by the
National Security Agency, lets the government move faster than the
standard practice of seeking a court-authorized warrant under the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

What Hunt failed to report was that Bush's claim is utterly bogus. The
court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
to provide authorization for international wiretaps is specifically
designed to respond quickly to the type of requests in question. The
so-called FISA court regularly authorizes these warrants
within hours and even minutes. Moreover, in the case of "emergency"
situations in which the attorney general deems it necessary to
undertake surveillance immediately, the statute itself allows the
government to obtain a warrant up to 72 hours after starting the
necessary surveillance. Apparently the Times no longer requires its
reporters to fact-check.

"I am doing what you expect me to do," this president also stated.
Wrong again: we expect this president to obey the law that prohibits
spying on its own citizens without a warrent. And to be impeached when
he breaks the law.

"Bush Insists on Tools to Fight Terror" (LA Times, 12/20)

From tmorange
Sent Saturday, December 24, 2005 11:50 am
To letters@latimes.com
Subject Bush Insists on Tools to Fight Terror (December 20, A1)

Dear Editors,

Edwin Chen and Janet Hook claimed that the "most forceful defense of
the surveillance program" this president made at his Decmeber 19 press
conference "focused on the argument that it was necessary to prevent
terrorist attacks. 'To save American lives, we must be able to act
fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks,'
he said, suggesting that courts could not act quickly enough" ("Bush
Insists on Tools to Fight Terror," December 20, A1).

What Chen and Hook failed to report was that such a defense is utterly
bogus. The court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA) to provide authorization for international wiretaps is
specifically designed to respond quickly to the type of requests in
question. The so-called FISA court regularly authorizes these warrants
within hours and even minutes. Moreover, in the case of "emergency"
situations in which the attorney general deems it necessary to
undertake surveillance immediately, the statute itself allows the
government to obtain a warrant up to 72 hours after starting the
necessary surveillance. Apparently the Times no longer requires its
reporters to fact-check.

"I am doing what you expect me to do," this president also stated.
Wrong again: we expect this president to obey the law that prohibits
spying on its own citizens without a warrent. And to be impeached when
he breaks the law.

"A Zeal to Defend Secrecy"

a version of my critique of kristol and schmitt from tuesday made it into yesterday's washington post "free for all" section, under the headline "A Zeal to Defend Secrecy." mine is the third contribution. i've never been published in the opinion pages before.

additional letters i wrote and sent this weekend forthcoming...

the key issues...

...in the NSA surveillance story seem to be at this point

1) making the legal briefs that were written and used in defense of the policy available to the public (through FOIA)

2) holding full hearings by the judiciairy committee as specter has already promised

3) finding out who was actually briefed on this (house and senate intellegence committee chairs and minority leaders aside)

4) and why the NSA was charged with carrying out this policy (more secret, less oversight)

5) and what are the implications of the fact that the NY Times sat on this story prior to the november 2004 elections

6) and senior NY Times editors being brought to the white house to be dissuaded by bush from running the story

i've been disappointed to see this matter flagging in the headlines, tho i spose it's natural on some level. this is potentially impeachable, and it needs to be pressed. when are the freakin economic libertarians going to throw in the towel on this guy?

typical scare tactics

From tmorange
Sent Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:13 pm
To letters@washpost.com
Subject typical scare tactics

Dear Editors,

William Kristol and Gary Schmitt use typical right-wing scare tactics to help make their case that "Bush seems to have behaved as one would expect and want a president to behave" when he authorized the NSA four years ago to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without court-approved warrants. ("Vital Presidential Power," December 20, page A31)

What would the President do if U.S. counterterrorists were in possession of cellphones belonging to recently apprehended al Qaeda terrorists? Applying for a warrant as he is obliged to under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Kristol and Schmitt muse, "the attorney general might have to tell the president he might well not be able to get that warrant," enabling the evildoers to carry out their plans.

Statistically, the likelihood of this hypothetical scenario ever happening is minimal. As Peter Baker and Charles Babington report ("Bush
Addresses Uproar Over Spying," December 20, page A01), "since [FISA] was passed in 1978 after intelligence scandals, the court has rejected just five of 18,748 requests for wiretaps and search warrants."

"Vital Presidential Power"

From tmorange
Sent Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:22 pm
To letters@washpost.com
Subject "Vital Presidential Power"

Dear Editors,

"[T]he issue... [is] whether the executive branch is going to uphold the law or subvert it." William Kristol wrote these words with David Brooks in the run-up to the 2000 election (in a September 25 Weekly Standard article entitled "The High Road to High Office") -- words that now ring ever more true given last week's revelation of this President's four-year old authorization of the NSA to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens
without court-approved warrants.

Today, Kristol writes with Gary Schmitt that "Congress has the right and the ability to judge whether President Bush has in fact used his executive discretion soundly, and to hold him responsible if he hasn't" ("Vital Presidential Power," December 20, 2005, page A31). This is a specious argument: Congress does not have the ability to judge a program that is kept secret from it and the rest of the country.

Kristol and Schmitt continue, "Bush seems to have behaved as one would expect and want a president to behave," aping Bush's own language from a press conference yesterday ("I am doing what you expect me to do"). Wrong again: I expect a president to obey the law. And to be impeached if he does not.