paranoid solipsists need not apply

Heather Mac Donald
c/o The Weekly Standard
1150 17th Street NW, Suite 505
Washington, DC 20036

May 16, 2006

Ms. Mac Donald,

It never ceases to amaze me how so-called conservatives who in other contexts decry "big government" somehow manage to vigorously embrace and defend the NSA phone call database, what one of USA Today's sources has called "the largest database ever assembled in the world" and certainly something Orwell could not have imagined in his worst nightmare.

Your missive "Information Please: Only a paranoid solipsist could feel threatened by the calling analysis program" (Weekly Standard, 22 May
2006) is filled with all the right reactionary buzzwords and hyperbole -- evoking the "ecstatic frenzy of denunciation and fear-mongering" by "privacy nuts" and "privacy extremists [who] enjoy unchallenged supremacy" -- but unfortunately the logic you would use to challenge them is also reactionary. And wrong.

Your first defense of this biggest of big government domestic surveillance programs -- and let's not quibble about whether or not data mining itself is surveillance or an increasingly integral part of an overall surveillance program -- relies on a series flawed assumptions. First, you claim the anonymity of the data being mined is maintained, presumably throughout its life in the database, even though you admit, in classic two-wrongs-make-a-right fashion, that "the government can de-anonymize the data" because "your phone company at the very least--if not a score of marketers--knows your calling history; that history is no longer private." Clearly, thanks to the good old free market, any pretenses towards maintaining anonymity here can be safely eliminated.

Your second defense of big government surveillance is that non-sentient computers are doing the mining rather than human beings. "The computer does not have a clue that you exist," you tell us reassuringly, "it does not know what it is churning through; your phone number is meaningless to it." Precisely the problem. While human intelligence is capable of reason, inference, speculation, intuition and so many other qualities that help minimize errors and protect against abuses, a computer alogrithm indeed "does not have a clue that you exist" and "does not know what it is churning through," thus making it all the more unlikely (if not altogether unable) to hesitate, change its mind, backtrack, reconsider, acknowledge or correct mistakes, in short, protect human interests. One need not be a paranoid solipsist to have concerns here.

Your third defense of big government surveillance is, ironically, its bigness, that the sheer enormity of the database protects the information from being abused, "render[ing] the image of individualized snooping so absurd." This is itself absurd, not only because the scenario you've already outlined, one of "supercharged computers to work analyzing patterns among the four trillion numbers involved in the two trillion calls" in search of "clusters that might suggest terrorist connections," already "renders the image of individualized snooping absurd." And again I'm not sure how a political philosophy of limited government enables you take comfort in this vision of "the NSA's supercomputers churning through trillions of zeros and ones representing disembodied phone numbers," a kind of safety-in-numbers digital dragnet that sounds surprisingly like the dehumanized automation of Soviet gulags that bonafide conservatives used to denounce on principle.

You're right in one respect though, Ms. Mac Donald: this president's "credibility, after the previous denials of data mining and failure to clarify its character, is, to say the least, weak." And if he wants to lose what little shred of credibility he has left among only his most die-hard supporters and not hand subpoena power to a Deomcratic-led House and Senate in November, I encourage him to adopt your flawed lines of argument, which I'm sure will win big with the American public.

class action against verizon

the seattle post-intelligencer carries this AP report...

TRENTON, N.J. -- Two New Jersey public interest lawyers sued Verizon Communications Inc. for $5 billion Friday, claiming the phone carrier violated privacy laws by turning over phone records to the National Security Agency for a secret government surveillance program.

mining or not?

"...the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities.
We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates." -- President's statement for the press, Thursday May 11, 2006

"The privacy of all Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. The government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval. We are not trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda terrorists and its affiliates who want to harm the American people." -- President's radio address, Saturday May 13, 2006

notice the distinct absence of the word "mining" from what is otherwise essentially identical language in the more recent statement. clearly the implication of this omission is that we are not not mining. so can we safely add the first statement to this president's long list of lies to the american people?

how much did you pay...

...to have your phone records turned over to the NSA?

this is the question i don't see anyone asking about the NSA phone call database story that USA Today broke the other day and which contains the following buried in paragraph 34 (my emphasis):

The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits. The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation.

so how much of our tax money did this government shell out to aquire our phone call records? conversely, how much did these companies profit from selling this information? anyone sees reads or hears anything about this please lemme know.

equally if not more troubling is this little titbit:

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

sounds like blackmail to me...

* * *

from the boston globe:

Mark Jellison, a Verizon customer in Quincy, isn't fazed that his phone company may have turned over his calling records and those of millions of others to the National Security Agency as part of an effort to thwart terrorism.

"After 9/11 our world has changed," Jellison said yesterday, standing outside a grocery store in Dorchester. "Prior to 9/11, I would have been more concerned, but I'm less concerned today."

score one again for the politics of fear. usually we think of the pre-9/11 world as one of complacency and naivety, and that would be true with respect to personal or national security. (and is still true i suppose with respect to our standing in the world vis-a-vis our ongoing imperialism, supporting repressive regimes and overthrowing democratically elected governments, etc.)

but fear is not all about "heightened awareness," paranoia, racial and religious prejudices, etc. clealy if mr. jellison is any indication, fear breeds complacency too vis-a-vis civil liberties, privacy issues, checks and balances, constitutional protections against unchecked executive power, etc.

your phone call records

here's leslie cauley's USA Today piece on the NSA phone call database. pretty essential reading on the full extent of this president's illegal domestic surveilance program and his nominee for CIA director who approved it. highlights

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.[...]

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.[...]

With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.[...]

AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation's three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers.[...]

The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.[...]

According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.[...] The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

here are the reactions as they're coming in, from:

NYTimes
LATimes
ABCNews
SFChronicle

An up or down vote

Dear Editors,

Republicans love to denounce Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee for being "obstructionists" who refuse to give this president's judicial nominees "an up or down vote." Seems that Republicans hold themselves to an altogether different standard, however, when it comes to investigating this president's warrantless domestic surveillance program -- an investigation they refused to authorize yesterday in a straight party-line vote. (See, for example, Charles Babington and Carol D. Leonnig, "Senate Rejects Wiretapping Probe," Washington Post, February 17 2006, page A06).

Though it has become something of a commonplace, Lord Acton's famous "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely" rings truer every day, as the headlines report more and more scandals, coverups, inside deals, bribes, denials and lies permeating the three branches of government controlled by the Republican Party. Make no mistake about it: we are living in a "democracy" whose system of checks and balances has simply ceased functioning. One wonders what it will take for the American people to take this country back.

[Sent to: Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Cincinnati Post, Columbus Post, Dallas Post Tribune, Denver Post, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Chicago Sun-Times, Quad-City Times, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Seattle Times, Times-Picayune, Akron Beacon Journal, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Louisville Courier-Journal, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Peoria Journal-Star, Poughkeepsie Journal, Providence Journal, Sioux City Journal, Topeka Capital-Journal, Chattanooga Times Free Press, Evansville Courier & Press, Grand Rapids Press, Green Bay Press-Gazette, San Antonio Express-News, American Conservative, American Enterprise, American Prospect, American Spectator, Cook Political Report, Human Events, Washington Monthly, Weekly Standard, ABC News, CBS News, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, NBC News, PBS]

VandeHei misleads

From tmorange
Sent Saturday, February 11, 2006 12:38 pm
To letters@washpost.com
Cc ombudsman@washpost.com
Subject Vandehei misleads

Dear Editor,

Why is it that the Post continues to put misleading characterizations that are favorable to this administration in its end-of-story background paragraphs?

In "Cheney Says NSA Spying Should Be an Election Issue" (February 10), Jim VandeHei's penultimate paragraph reads:

"In recent weeks, Bush has shifted his public focus away from Iraq and trained it on winning public support for the program. Some Democrats argue that Bush is breaking the law by spying on people in the United States without a warrant and without congressional or judicial oversight. Bush contends that the Constitution and the 2001 congressional war resolution give him the authority to take such steps to track down terrorism suspects."

The second sentence in this paragraph is misleading at best, if not factually inaccurate. It's not merely "some democrats" have questioned the legality of this president's domestic surveillance program: leading Republicans such as Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham and Chuck Hagel, along with the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, have all questioned this program.

I have written about this practice before and received no reply. One would think that in light of the great controversy that this practice generated then, the Post would be more careful; instead, the practice brazenly and shamelessly continues.

When will the Post be responsible and accountable to its readers?

bush's killer red herring

perfect example of why this administration and its slavish right-wing supporters are so frustratingly impossible to deal with.

The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers, called from the outside of the United States and of known al Qaeda or affiliate people. In other words, the enemy is calling somebody and we want to know who they're calling and why.... Ed, I can say that if somebody from al Qaeda is calling you, we'd like to know why. (Bush, San Antonio, January 1 2005)

And it seems like to me that if somebody is talking to Al Qaeda, we want to know why. (Bush, Lousiville KY, Jan 11 2006)

And so, as the president said if someone in the United States, if you're an American citizen and you're talking to al Qaeda, we want to know why. I think it's very, very important that we know about communications that are occurring within the United States to folks outside the United States that may be affiliated with al Qaeda. (Gonzales, Larry King Live, CNN, January 16 2006)

If there is an al Qaeda person operating inside the United States and talking to someone outside the United States, you bet we want to know what they're saying. (Scott McClellan, White House Briefing, January 25 2006)

If there are people inside our country who are talkin' with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again. (Bush, SOTU address, Jan 31 2006)

Let me put it to you in Texan: If al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know. (Bush, Grand Ole Opry, Nashville, February 1 2006)

As the President has said, if you're talking with al Qaeda, we want to know what you're saying. (Gonzales, Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, February 6 2006)

NEW:But the president has also been very clear. If you're talking to al Qaeda, even if you're an American citizen, we want to know why. (Gonzales, The Charlie Rose Show, PBS, February 8 2006)

On Face the Nation this Sunday, David "BoBo" Brooks called (PDF 98K) this "a killer line." If he means that it kills off any further discussion or debate he's absolutely right.

In terms of argumentative logic, of course, it's utterly fallacious and a classic example of the red herring. That we should be spying on those who wish to commit acts of terrorism against us is utterly beyond dispute. It is a position that rightly meets with near universal approval in this country, and thus anyone who takes this position can likewise expect to win such approval.

As a defense of a secret domestic surveillance program of highly dubious legality, however, Bush's "killer line" fails utterly. To embrace the practice of spying on our enemies in general completely dodges the question of whether the manner in which this president does it is legal or not. It is a perfectly designed non-refutation masquerading as a refutation.

And it is repeated over and over and over and over again by this president and his uniform chorus of accomplices. Watch the red herring be repeated and spun, over and over and over [my emphases]:

What about this new technology called data mining, where they go out -- I don't even know this world, but I know it's out there -- they can look at the world of email and they can look -- throw out a big fish net and say let's look at everybody who's used the phrase Lincoln Tunnel or Empire State Building or Sears Tower. Anybody between here and that al Qaeda land over there, those Arab countries, is using words like that on the phone, we want to know who they are. Can you go to a FISA court and say went to lasso everybody who's used the word Lincoln Tunnel in the past three weeks? (Chris Matthews to Former FISA Court Counsel Kenneth Bass, Hardball, MSNBC, January 16 2006) What a rambling lunatic: "that al Qaeda land over there?" Whoozamajig? al-Whatsit?

Americans get it. We were reminded last week that Usama still wants to kill us in the country we live in, and we understand that he claims to have people already in our country plotting our demise. So when you say, as Bush is saying, if Al Qaeda is calling someone in America, we want to know what they're saying on that call, Americans say, "Yes, we sure do want to know." If Democrats are going to argue against that position by saying, "You're not obeying the 1978 FISA law, which requires a warrant every time you listen to an Al Qaeda call," they've lost the argument before it even begins. (John Gibson, The Big Story, Fox News, January 24 2006) Ah yes, nothing like a little faux patriotism rilled up with a little fear. No debate, no hearings necessary: just lather, rinse, repeat.

[NBC’s Brian] WILLIAMS: And, David Gregory, the quote was "If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaeda, we want to know about it because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again." How high is confidence at the White House that they are on the right, winning side of this issue as it's debated?
GREGORY: I--I think that quote says it all about how the White House views this. Not as a controversy and our own polling bears this out; it's much more a debate inside Washington than it is around the country. The president thinks that this is something that can be used to his advantage, to his party's advantage in this midterm election year. I think you're going to hear that line, "We are not going to sit back and wait to be hit again," over and over again as this debate plays out. I think this is the central defining aspect of how the president views his presidency, that he simply totally changed by 9/11, and that he had to use tactics necessary to save American lives. (NBC Coverage of the SOTU address, January 31 2006) Williams' question already stacks the deck in favor of the Bushies. Gregory alludes to opinion polls but of course doesn't cite them, tho he at least gets it right about over and over again even as he willingly partakes in this self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Fox's Sean] HANNITY: There were certain key moments though, Senator, where your Democratic colleagues chose to sit down. For example, when the president said, "If there are people inside our country who are talking with Al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we're not going to sit back and be hit again," similarly on the Patriot Act, similarly on the issue of taxes, when he said that we need to make the tax cuts permanent. What did that tell the American people about the Democrats' response when they sat down at those moments?
[Senator George] ALLEN [R-VA]: I think it was very telling, Sean. I noticed that, as well, particularly on making sure that we find out what Al Qaeda, our enemies, are conspiring to do. Why wouldn't we want to know? (Hannity & Co., Fox News, January 31 2006) Classic "blame the Democrats first" move from Hannity. Divert, duck and distract. And another spoon-fed question, which Allen gobbles up with the stupified relish.

BUSH: It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again. (END VIDEO CLIP)
[MSNBC's Chris] MATTHEWS: I think that was the best line of the night, Pat.
BUCHANAN: I think it was not only the best line, but the president's most under attack on that issue, and he came out hardest, most direct, totally unapologetic, I'm going to do it, we're not going to let them hit us again. I think -- again, I think he's winning the issue because the Democrats won't get up and say, Stop this! Cut off those antennas! Stop listening! They won't do it!
MATTHEWS: They thought they had him on the run, Tucker...
CARLSON: Yes!
MATTHEWS: ... for about two days, and then they -- then he -- they cornered him, he said, OK, let me check the numbers here. Oh, I’ll win here. (Hardball, MSNBC, February 1 2006) Oh will the machismo ever go unabated? Bow-tied and blow-dried Tucker, throw in the towel!

But I think that for him to be able to go out and talk about, in particular, the NSA program, which has become a big political issue, I think he does himself good because he gets a huge platform, huge audience for it, people are now paying attention and he gets to go out and say things like if al Qaeda is calling, we want to know, implying that his critics or people who raise questions about the program, don't. Which I actually think is not true. But I think in that sense, the more he can say that probably, the more he can frame the issue his way. He did not lay out a bold domestic agenda for his party to follow this year, that is for sure. (Mara Liasson, Fox News Special Report, February 1 2006) Chiming in from the "liberal media" peanut gallery, NPR's Liasson is so preoccupied with spinning the SOTU that she can barely put a word in edgewise on what she herself thinks is the truth.

"If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again." Now that is precisely the kind of posture that you would want the president of the United States to take. (Senator Jon Kyl, Press Conference, U.S. Capitol, February 2 2006) Yeah, a president propped up by red herrings: great posture.

I agree with E.J. [Dionne] I think politically this is winner for the president. The president had a line in the State of the Union you're going to be hearing that if somebody from al-Qaeda is calling from the U.S., we want to know about it. That's a good applause line. (David Brooks, All Things Considered, NPR, February 3 2005) Speaks for itself. And why let good punditry go unreleated? (See below.)

BUSH: Using this surveillance to find out the intention of the enemy is a fundamental incident of war to protect the American people. Let me put it to you in Texan. If al Qaeda is calling in to the United States, we want to know.
BARNES: You know, I think the president's going to be, I think the president is going to be OK legally on this. But the one thing for sure is, this is a slam-dunk issue for him politically. Democrats ought to just drop even any mention of it.
KONDRACKE: Yes. Well, the Democrats wonder why the public doesn't trust them on national security and terrorism. I mean, look in the mirror, for heaven’s sake. Their first reaction to the word that Bush was, had ordered, quote unquote, "domestic spying," which it's not, it's really what, what the Bush administration says it is, terrorist surveillance, was, was, was, you know, he broke the law... (The Beltway Boys, Fox News, February 4, 2006) No debate, no hearings necessary: just lather, rinse, repeat. Lies and all. (Um, yes it very much is "domestic spying" no matter how many times you try to rename it "terrorist surveillance." And yes, by most readings of the law the Dems are right, Bush did break the law.)

BUSH: The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.
[Paul GIGOT: My reading of that is that Karl Rove is saying, "Democrats come on in and let's debate this was here to November."
[Wall Street Journal columnist and deputy editor Dan] HENNINGER: Yes, absolutely. And that is a perfectly valid strategy. The question is whether the Republicans in Congress will pick up on it. (WSJ Editorial Report, Fox News, February 4, 2006). Valid political strategy, sure; bogus argumentative reasoning too. And oh, debate it or don't bother? (See above.)

The president's line in the State of the Union was: 'If al-Qaeda's making a phone call here, I want to listen in.' That's just a killer line. And there are two issues here. Is it legal and is it good? And these hearings are going to give me a big toothache because they're going to be about is it legal and who said what to who [sic] a year ago, and there's going to be a whole bunch of 'gotcha' games. But I want them to talk about how we going [sic] to make this legal so everybody agrees it's legal. (David Brooks, Face the Nation, CBS, February 5 2006) Oh, Bobo. Is da widdle pundeet gawn and have himsewlf a widdle tooph achie over da big baaad awful law men? You mean the kinda gotcha games where you manipulate a president into lying under oath about a disgraceful but utterly personal matter with no national security ramifications whatsoever? Got an easy way to make this legal for ya, pal: DON'T BREAK THE LAW. And if you do: IMPEACH!

I think right now - I would say up until now, that the president who has had the bully pulpit and who has been pretty relentless in describing the program as that if al-Qaeda is talking to somebody we want to know about it, you don't support this program or if you raise questions you don't want to hear about it. I would say that he has had the advantage and Democrats have been on the defensive. (Mara Liasson, Fox News Special Report, February 6 2006) AGAIN calling it for Bush from the "liberal media" peanut gallery.

NOTE: This short list does not include all the times the red herring line is repeated in video and audio sound bites, with or without a reporter or anchor's commentary characterizing it as a "defense."

Rove Lie Unchallenged

From tmorange
Sent Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:54 am
To letters@latimes.com
Cc readers.rep@latimes.com
Subject Rove Lie Unchallenged

Dear Editors,

In "GOP Praises Eavesdropping Program" (Los Angeles Times, January 21 2006), James Gerstenzang quotes Karl Rove at a Republican National Committee meeting: "Let me be as clear as I can be," Rove said. "President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they are calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

This is a lie, plain and simple. No one in either party who has questioned this president's illegal domestic spying program thinks we should not be gathering intelligence on al Qaeda. Gerstenzang reports Rove's lie as unchallenged fact; he does not support Rove's assertion with facts because there are none to support it. Instead, Gerstenzang speculates that Rove was "referring to a full-page ad in Friday's New York Times calling on Bush to leave office." But again, Gerstenzang offers no basis for this speculation.

When is the mainstream media going to start challenging this administration's lies instead of swallowing them and serving them back up undigested to its readership? The Times owes its readers a correction.

Bush's Bubble

From tmorange
Sent Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:37 am
To letters@washpost.com
Subject Bush's Bubble

Dear Editors,

So the White House is trying to convince us that this president does not live in a bubble. Good luck. When he said yesterday in Kansas, "It's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he's just breaking the law,'" Bush kept both feet firmly in the bubble.

Amazing that people think he's breaking the law? Not really, considering that FISA expressly prohibits his ongoing domestic surveillance program. Maybe he'd be less amazed if he stepped outside of the "unitary executive" legal bubble contrived for him by the likes of Yoo, Gonzales and Alito and listened to practically any other lawyer in the country who will tell Bush that, in fact, he does not have unlimited authority.

"If I wanted to break the law," he continued, "why was I briefing Congress?" Gee willikers, would he be so careless as to incriminate himself? In the reality-based community outside Bush's bubble, it's clear that he did not brief congress like he was required to when he started breaking the law, and that he only went public with his secret domestic surveillance program after he could not keep the New York Times from breaking the story any longer.

Nagourney 's Delicate Dance

From tmorange
Sent Monday, January 23, 2006 12:48 pm
To letters@nytimes.com
Cc public@nytimes.com
Subject Nagourney 's Delicate Dance

Dear Editor,

Although he quotes presidential advisor and strategist Karl Rove in an outright lie, Adam Nagourney simply cannot bring himself to report it as such ("Delicate Dance for Bush in Depicting Spy Program as Asset," The New York Times, January 22).

In what he calls "a classic example" of how this adminstration "systematically present[s] arguments in accessible if sometimes exaggerated terms," Nagourney quotes Rove saying, "Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

Unfortunately, these are not merely "accessible if sometimes exaggerated terms" as Nagourney so delicately tapdances it. Rove is simply lying. No one who has questioned this president's illegal domestic spying program opposes gathering intelligence on al Qaeda. Rove's appeal to clarity is the height of hypocrisy--the only recourse he has in defense of an indefensible program. And if Nagourney is subsequently, if only partially correct when he states that "it is difficult to think of a Democrat who has actually argued that it is not 'in our national security interest' to track Qaeda calls to the United States, as Mr. Rove contested," that's because there are none. Rove "did not offer any examples of whom he had in mind" because there are none.

The great lengths to which Nagourney goes to keep Rove's blatant lies within the bounds of reasoned discourse defy comprehension. Why, when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, does Nagourney call it not quite but possibly any of the numerous wild or domesticated web-footed swimming birds of the family Anatidae characterized by a broad, flat bill, short legs and a depressed body? The time is long past due for the Times to start reporting this adminstration's lies for what they are.

Explain the wiretap story delays

From tmorange
Sent Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:56 pm
To executive-editor@nytimes.com
Cc public@nytimes.com , fair@fair.org
Subject Explain the wiretap story delays

Dear Mr. Keller,

It is now almost a month since the New York Times broke the story, after sitting on it for over a year, of this president's secret domestic eavesdropping program. Your December 16 statement explaining the delay has left many questions unanswered.

How is it that you found yourselves "faced with a convincing national security argument" from this administration, namely that terrorists might find out they were being spied on if the story was published, when terrorists surely must know our government is spying on them? (You admit this yourself when you stated that "The fact that the government eavesdrops on those suspected of terrorist connections is well-known.")

How is it that it took a year for "the legal or civil liberties questions involved in such a program... [to loom] larger within the government than [you] had previously understood," when even a first-year law student can read FISA and understand that this administration expressly disobeyed its provisions? If, as you say, "What [was] new [was] that the N.S.A. has for the past three years had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without a warrant," the this administration was clearly not forthcoming with you inits initial characterization of the spying program.

All of this will presumably come out once the FOIA request filed by Howard Dean is fulfilled and the congressional hearings on the matter begin. But in the meantime, a fuller explanation on your part is long overdue.

 

Dafna Linzer, "Secret Surveillance May Have Occurred Before Authorization" (Washington Post, January 4, Page A03

From tmorange
Sent Wednesday, January 11, 2006 2:26 pm
To ombudsman@washpost.com
Subject Dafna Linzer, "Secret Surveillance May Have Occurred Before      Authorization" (January 4, Page A03)

Dear Ms. Howell,

I've reviewed the dispute between you and Media Matters for America over Dafna Linzer's January 4 article about the Bush administration's domestic spying operation, and I am alarmed that you have not publically and for the record acknowledged the Post's errant reporting.

You claimed in your internal "omblog" for Post employees that "It was clear if you read the story that she [Linzer] was simply giving the administration's point of view as well as others." Only in the broadest sense, however, is your characterization accurate. In fact, Linzer engaged in typical journalistic end-of-story recapping that is dangerous precisely because of the inaccuracies it potentially allows to sneak in unchecked and uncorrected. Let's consider the paragraph in question again.

     The NSA program operated in secret until it was made public in news accounts
     last month. Since then, President Bush and his advisers have defended it as
     legal and necessary to protect the country against future attacks and have said
     Congress was repeatedly consulted. But Democrats, some Republicans and
     constitutional law experts have raised concerns about whether Bush overstepped
     his constitutional authority and violated privacy laws meant to guard against the
     government spying on its own citizens without a warrant. The NSA's work,
     which is normally restricted to eavesdropping overseas, also angered judges on
     a special court that administers warrants for secret investigations.

Broadly speaking, yes, Linzer "was simply giving the administration's point of view as well as others" -- the second sentence reiterates the Bush adminstration's position, and the third reiterates the opposing view. But on the rhetorical and factual levels, Linzer's reiterations do not square with one another. Rhetorically, just look at the verb choices: "have defended" and "have said Congress was repeatedly
consulted" imply that the administration responds to attacks with facts, while "have raised concerns [about the program's legality]" is tentative and speculative at best. By other accounts, FISA's provisions are unequivocal and Bush has broken the law. Clearly, in seeming to merely reiterate the two positions, Linzer has already tipped the balance in favor of the Administration.

Factually, there's no contest: Linzer's reiteration of the Bush position, that "President Bush and his advisers... have said Congress was repeatedly consulted," contains a blatant untruth. Representatives Hoekstra and Pelosi, former Senators Graham and Daschle, and Senators Rockefeller and Reid have all gone on the record describing in detail the extent to which Congress was NOT repeatedly consulted on this matter, and I'm sure I don't need to cite these instances.

Ultimately, what gets left out in these end-of-story recaps is often just as important, if not more so, than what gets left in. To give you another example, Linzer's last sentence in the above paragraph states that "The NSA's work... also angered judges on [the FISA Court]," which is factually correct but omits the fact that Judge James Robertson resigned in protest over the president's program -- a far more decisive act than merely being angered.

As I see it, precisely these end-of-story recaps hold the greatest potential for the reiteration of misinformation, factual inaccuracies and outright lies. It's where the reporter is in a rush to squeeze in the back story and is therefore most susceptible to sound bites, talking points and received "truths." But it's an essential part of the journalist's job to interrogate such conventional wisdom rather than blindly parrot it. Linzer and her editors should have pointed out the dispute over the adminstration's claim to having consulted Congress or omitted it altogether.

Finally, this case bears a striking resemblance to the September 4 Post article entitled "Many Evacuated, but Thousands Still Waiting; White House Shifts Blame to State and Local Officials," in which an anonymous "senior Bush official" falsely claimed that "[a]s of Saturday [September 3], [Louisiana Governor Kathleen] Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency." As then-ombudsman Michael Getler noted a week later, "The Post moved quickly to correct this." I urge you to follow his example in this case.

 

"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...