Rush detained

[Geoff_M]

You gotta love Nancy! Seriously, I love it every time she comes out with stuff like this... She offers some the best political theater around.

The Republican resolution before us today is quite clearly a document for political purposes.

Well, like, "Duh!" It's a resolution with no force of law. It's no different than when you call your Representative and ask for a nice framed resolution that honors your school's 100th anniversary. Of course it's "political". Thanks for pointing out the obvious!

A free press is centered on reporting on the workings of government and on being 'alert, aware, and free.' They have an obligation to be responsible about their reporting of national security, and to balance any reporting with the harm of disclosure.

The last time I checked, the NYT and LAT still had their presses rolling and weren't under Governmental padlock. I also don't recall any reporters or editors being hauled off to the pokey. I'll make a bold prediction and go out on a limb and say that I think none of this will likely change anytime soon. The GOP, to the disappointment of many, removed the NYT by name from the resolution lest they be viewed as threatening them. I think Nancy can cool her jets about the "chilling effects" of this all powerful "resolution" on our press. I'm sure it's just the thing needed to make the NYT "toe the line" here on out, right?

When the identity of an undercover CIA officer was disclosed by high ranking members of the administration in the White House, as part of a smear campaign against a critic of the Iraq war, the president did not fire any of the leakers - in fact one of them was actually promoted.

Funny, if Ms. Pelosi has any evidence that Ms. Plame's covert status was intentionally blown (like the SWIFT data mining program), I suggest she pass it on to Patrick Fitzgerald post haste. I'm sure he'd actually like to get some! Nancy also appears guilty of contradicting her self here... So information disclosed to the Press to shed light on a matter of public interest but perhaps arguably causes harm is OK in some cases, but not others... depending on whose ox is being gored???

So let's take this resolution for what it is: it is a campaign document.

Yep... and as such, I urge you to vote your conscience and vote against it! Com'on, put your money where your mouth is! Do it! Do it!

There's never been any oversight of the program.

Nancy Pelosi seems to be in a minority (excuse the pun) on this one along with the NYT, and the LAT. A lot of her colleagues and their staffers that were briefed about the program have taken exception to this notion. So, is Nancy suggesting that unless Congress gets to oversee the day-to-day operations of a program, then there's no "oversight"? She also ignores that it's Congress that controls the governmental purse strings, and it can kill any program they want to (and it's clear that Congressional leaders from both parties knew about this program) by de-funding it... which I'd call some pretty serious "oversight" power!

 

[TheDoctor]

The SWIFT program disclosure did not hurt our war on terrorism. Here is a NYT article from two experts on counterterrorism that makes clear that the terrorist both knew about this program and had already taken steps to avoid it. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/opinion/30clarke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin\
_________________
A Secret the Terrorists Already Knew
By RICHARD A. CLARKE and ROGER W. CRESSEY
COUNTERTERRORISM has become a source of continuing domestic and international political controversy. Much of it, like the role of the Iraq war in inspiring new terrorists, deserves analysis and debate. Increasingly, however, many of the political issues surrounding counterterrorism are formulaic, knee-jerk, disingenuous and purely partisan. The current debate about United States monitoring of transfers over the Swift international financial system strikes us as a case of over-reaction by both the Bush administration and its critics.....

So, too, however, are the Bush administration's protests that the press revelations about the financial monitoring program may tip off the terrorists. Administration officials made the same kinds of complaints about news media accounts of electronic surveillance. They want the public to believe that it had not already occurred to every terrorist on the planet that his telephone was probably monitored and his international bank transfers subject to scrutiny. How gullible does the administration take the American citizenry to be?

Terrorists have for many years employed nontraditional communications and money transfers — including the ancient Middle Eastern hawala system, involving couriers and a loosely linked network of money brokers — precisely because they assume that international calls, e-mail and banking are monitored not only by the United States but by Britain, France, Israel, Russia and even many third-world countries.

While this was not news to terrorists, it may, it appears, have been news to some Americans, including some in Congress. But should the press really be called unpatriotic by the administration, and even threatened with prosecution by politicians, for disclosing things the terrorists already assumed?

In the end, all the administration denunciations do is give the press accounts an even higher profile. If administration officials were truly concerned that terrorists might learn something from these reports, they would be wise not to give them further attention by repeatedly fulminating about them.

There is, of course, another possible explanation for all the outraged bloviating. It is an election year. Karl Rove has already said that if it were up to the Democrats, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would still be alive. The attacks on the press are part of a political effort by administration officials to use terrorism to divide America, and to scare their supporters to the polls again this year.

The administration and its Congressional backers want to give the impression that they are fighting a courageous battle against those who would wittingly or unknowingly help the terrorists. And with four months left before Election Day, we can expect to hear many more outrageous claims about terrorism — from partisans on both sides. By now, sadly, Americans have come to expect it.

 

[Geoff_M]

"A Secret the Terrorists Already Knew"

This is really too rich!!! It's amazing the lengths that the NYT is now going to to backpedal all of their original reporting on a program that, I quote, was "is a closely held secret" and "hidden"... now it's "They all knew about it! Well, except for that guy they used to call the 'Asian Osama'... oh, and those guys they just busted in Canada... and those wannabe guys down in Miami... and all those other people caught that made it an effective program!". Wow! Talk about chutzpah!!!

Karl Rove has already said that if it were up to the Democrats...

OK, stop the clock!!! So, who had seven days in the "How long will it take for the NYT to hint that this is all the work of Karl Rove!" pool??? I picked five days, myself. Nuts!

The administration and its Congressional backers...

You mean like that close personal friend of the Administration, John Murtha?!?!?

By RICHARD A. CLARKE...

Hmmmm, Richard Clarke.... Wasn't he that dude that Commission member, and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, told "You've got a real credibility problem" during the 9/11 Commission hearings when addressing the disconnects between his recently published anti-Bush "tell all" book and his testimony under oath???

Hey, check this out... Link For a nominal fee you can have a real live award winning NYT reporter come speak to your group about all his efforts to fight the evil-doers in the Administration and how he goes about blowing the whistle on troubling secret (or, make that "Well, 'sorta' secret") programs! Nothing wrong with that.... nice work if you can get it. And I'm sure blowing new programs sure doesn't hurt the "nut" he commands.

OK, go scamper off and find another new article or press release to post!!! Now off you go!

 

[TheDoctor]

Nancy Pelosi seems to be in a minority (excuse the pun) on this one along with the NYT, and the LAT. A lot of her colleagues and their staffers that were briefed about the program have taken exception to this notion.

Wrong. Bush does not properly brief Congress on any of his favorite programs. Under the Law (something that bush does not feel that he has to comply with), the President is required to brief all members of the relevant committees. This was not done until bush learned that the program was going to be disclosed. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...,5583529.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines
_________________
Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said yesterday that she and many of her colleagues on the committee were briefed on the program by Treasury Department officials only after the administration learned that it would be exposed in the media.

Harman, a California Democrat, said she did not learn about the transaction-monitoring program until last month. It has been in operation since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"They knew it was going to leak," Harman said.

Harman said the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, was informed of the operation before the full committee briefing.

A Hoekstra spokesman said the Michigan lawmaker was briefed on the program shortly after he became chairman in 2004. Harman said she did not know why she had not also been given an earlier briefing

 

[Geoff_M]

. Bush does not properly brief Congress on any of his favorite programs. Under the Law (something that bush does not feel that he has to comply with), the President is required to brief all members of the relevant committees.

Nice tactic... the usual, cut-n-paste and then add "facts" not asserted in the text. Can you please show me the applicable law that demands that the President brief all applicable committee members for every single foreign intelligence program in existence??? I not recall previous administrations being held to the same "law"...

 

[TheDoctor]

Nice tactic... the usual, cut-n-paste and then add "facts" not asserted in the text. Can you please show me the applicable law that demands that the President brief all applicable committee members for every single foreign intelligence program in existence??? I not recall previous administrations being held to the same "law"...

This law has been around for some time. I hope that this will explain it to you.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight
----------------
The President of the United States is required by 50 U.S.C. § 413(a)(1) to "ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States." However, the President may elect to report instead to the Gang of Eight when he feels "it is essential to limit access" to information about a covert action.

The term "Gang of Eight" gained wide currency in the coverage of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program, in the context that no members of Congress other than the Gang of Eight were informed of the program, and they were forbidden to disseminate knowledge of the program to other members of Congress. The Bush administration has asserted that the briefings delivered to the Gang of Eight sufficed to provide Congressional oversight of the program and preserve the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service released a legal analysis on January 18, 2006, concluding that the Bush administration's refusal to brief any members of Congress on the warrantless domestic spying program other than the Gang of Eight is "inconsistent with the law."

 

[Charade]

This law has been around for some time. I hope that this will explain it to you.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Eight
----------------
The President of the United States is required by 50 U.S.C. § 413(a)(1) to "ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States." However, the President may elect to report instead to the Gang of Eight when he feels "it is essential to limit access" to information about a covert action.

The term "Gang of Eight" gained wide currency in the coverage of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program, in the context that no members of Congress other than the Gang of Eight were informed of the program, and they were forbidden to disseminate knowledge of the program to other members of Congress. The Bush administration has asserted that the briefings delivered to the Gang of Eight sufficed to provide Congressional oversight of the program and preserve the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.

The non-partisan Congressional Research Service released a legal analysis on January 18, 2006, concluding that the Bush administration's refusal to brief any members of Congress on the warrantless domestic spying program other than the Gang of Eight is "inconsistent with the law."

So IOW, you just disproved your point.

 

[TheDoctor]

So IOW, you just disproved your point.

Wrong. The only real news to come out of the NYT story was the fact that there was no congressional oversight or authorization of this program. Rep. Jane Harman disclosed that she was not informed or briefed about the program until after the Bush adminsitration decided that the program was going to be disclosed. Congress is suppose to be briefed about all intelligence programs. The Bush adminstration has not done this for a number of programs including the NSA wire tap program. Geoff_M ased for an explanation of the law that requires Congressional oversight and I provided a short article on this requirement that explained how the non-partisan Congressional Research Service concluded that Bush could not refuse to brief all members of the relevant committees with respect to the NSA illegal wire tap program.

Frank Rich of the NYT has a great editoral on the political games being played by the Republicans with respect to the NYT. Basically Peter King is using the fake outrage to cover up the fact that he as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee could not prevent New York's homeland security funding from being cut 40%. The editorial also notes:
______________
Old Glory lost today," Bill Frist declaimed last week when his second attempt to rewrite the Constitution in a single month went the way of his happy prognosis for Terri Schiavo. Of course it isn't Old Glory that lost when the flag-burning amendment flamed out. The flag always survives the politicians who wrap themselves in it. What really provoked Mr. Frist's crocodile tears was the foiling of yet another ruse to distract Americans from the wreckage in Iraq. He and his party, eager to change the subject in an election year, just can't let go of their scapegoat strategy. It's illegal Hispanic immigrants, gay couples seeking marital rights, cut-and-run Democrats and rampaging flag burners who have betrayed America's values, not those who bungled a war.

No sooner were the flag burners hustled offstage than a new traitor was unveiled for the Fourth: the press. Public enemy No. 1 is The New York Times, which was accused of a "disgraceful" compromise of national security (by President Bush) and treason (by Representative Peter King of New York and the Coulter amen chorus). The Times's offense was to publish a front-page article about a comprehensive American effort to track terrorists with the aid of a Belgian consortium, Swift, which serves as a clearinghouse for some 7,800 financial institutions in 200 countries.....

Only a terrorist who couldn't shoot straight would assume that Swift was not part of the American effort to stalk terrorist transactions; that's tantamount to assuming that cops would track down license plate numbers without enlisting the Department of Motor Vehicles. But, unfortunately for us, terrorists are not so stupid: it's been reported as far back as 2003 (in The Washington Post) and as recently as this month (in Ron Suskind's must-read best seller, "The One Percent Doctrine") that our enemies long ago took Mr. Bush at his word and abandoned banks for couriers, money brokers, front companies and suitcases stuffed with cash and gold. Tom Brokaw summarized the consensus of terrorism experts last week when he told Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "I don't know anyone who believes that the terrorist network said, 'Oh my God, they're tracing our financial transactions? What a surprise.' Of course, they knew that they were doing that."

The real news conveyed by The Times and its competitors was not the huge program to track terrorist finances, but that per usual from the administration that gave us Gitmo, the program was conducted with little oversight from the other two branches of government. Even so, the reporting on the pros and cons of that approach was, as Mr. Snow said, balanced.....

The assault on a free press during our own wartime should be recognized for what it is: another desperate ploy by officials trying to hide their own lethal mistakes in the shadows. It's the antithesis of everything we celebrate with the blazing lights of Independence Day

 

[TheDoctor]

Nancy Pelosi seems to be in a minority (excuse the pun) on this one along with the NYT, and the LAT. A lot of her colleagues and their staffers that were briefed about the program have taken exception to this notion.

Not only was the House Intelligence Committee not briefed on the bank program, it appears that the Senate Intelligence committee was not briefed until the leak was known. If not for the NYT leak, the relevant intelligence committees would not have been briefed by the White House.
___________________________

STEPHANOPOULOS: The White House said they briefed the Congress on this matter and there is no law called into question. Do you believe that a law is called into question and that this program might have been illegal?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m on the Intelligence Committee. I can tell you when I was briefed and when the committee was briefed — and that was when it became apparent that the New York Times had the story and was going to run it. And that’s when and why they came to us and briefed us.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you knew nothing about it before the New York Times was asking questions?

FEINSTEIN: That’s correct

 

[Geoff_M]

Not only was the House Intelligence Committee not briefed on the bank program, it appears that the Senate Intelligence committee was not briefed until the leak was known. If not for the NYT leak, the relevant intelligence committees would not have been briefed by the White House.

OK, you really need to make up your mind on whether the program was "secret" or not. Because you've been all over the map on this one. When you talk about the subject of whether the disclosure of the program was harmful to US interests, you go on and on about how this program wasn't really "secret" because the "terrorists" already knew about it, the Bush administration at one time or another has talked about publically and promoted it to the media in an effort to garner positive press... but when it comes to Congress this was a highly "secret" program that none (or not "enough") of the Congressional leadership knew about and Bush was illegally keeping the program from them?!?!? So how is it that Democratic Congressional leaders were clueless about a program that the Bush Administration has supposedly talked about, on more than one occasion, publically? You're just like the NYT... "It's secret... but it's not."

 

[sodaseller]

Nice tactic... the usual, cut-n-paste and then add "facts" not asserted in the text. Can you please show me the applicable law that demands that the President brief all applicable committee members for every single foreign intelligence program in existence??? I not recall previous administrations being held to the same "law"...

No oversight is a matter of statute - it is a function of Constitutional Structure, the power of the purse, of the fact that among Congressional enumerated powers is the following

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;


To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;


To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;


To provide and maintain a navy;


To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;


To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

IOW, almost any CinC powers the President assumes are subject to Congressional oversight. By definition, oversight requires reporting. Now this is admittedly a toothless Congress and they likely would never do anything anyway. But the Constitution so requires, which is why Congressional subpoenas etc are enforceable - not as function of statute, but because of the Constitutional structure

 

[TheDoctor]

OK, you really need to make up your mind on whether the program was "secret" or not. Because you've been all over the map on this one.

Wrong. First, it is clear that the Bush administration did not brief Congress on the program. The Bush administration was required to brief the full committeed on all operations like this one but did not do so. This is consistent with the Bush position that it is above the law and does not have to brief congress on anything but what it wants to brief congress.

Second, the disclosure of the program did not harm national security or endanger anyone contrary to the political talking points being put out by the GOP. Again, the terrorist knew that that the banks and wire transfers were being monitored. All that the NYT did is disclosed that one particular program and the key fact that the program was not authorized by congress and the Bush administration was not keeping congress briefed about the program.

The uproar about this program is simply a smoke screen to disguise the fact that Iraq is not going well and Bush's poll ratings are in the dumps during an election year.

Kelller on the NYT editoral board explained this very well yesterday. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...ew_of_banking_story/?rss_id=Boston.com+/+News
________________
Keller, on CBS, said it is the government that "likes to have it both ways. ... They confide in us when they want to advertise the programs that are successful. And then they rebuke us if we write about something they would prefer we didn't write about."

He added that he is only a little surprised by the level of criticism the paper is receiving.

"I mean, it's an election year. Beating up on The New York Times is red meat for the conservative base," Keller said. "But I don't think this is all politics. I think the administration is a little embarrassed. This is the most secretive White House we've had since the Nixon White House."

Columnist William Safire, who writes the weekly "On Language" column for The New York Times Magazine, defended the paper Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press."

"I don't speak for the Times. I've been in the Times for 30 years disagreeing with Times' editorial policy right down the line. On this one, I think they did the right thing," he said.

 

[Geoff_M]

First, it is clear that the Bush administration did not brief Congress on the program.

Wow, Doc... back the truck up a second. As part of your assertion that this program was not "secret", you posted this back on post #274: (italics mine)

But a search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.

``There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. ``The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before."

In post #288, you buttressed the point even further by adding this:

Since then, the Treasury Department has produced dozens of news releases and public reports detailing its efforts. Though officials appear never to have mentioned the Swift program, they have repeatedly described their cooperation with financial networks to identify accounts held by people and organizations linked to terrorism.

So now you're trying to assert that Bush kept Congress in the dark with regard to this program... for something that you've posted was "in the public domain". Come now, Doc. You even posted that there was Congressional testimony on the activities. On top of that, The Treasury Dept., per your post, while not mentioning explictily that SWIFT was one of the agencies the US was cooperating with, has openly and repeatedly mentioned publically the existience of programs such as the one that incorporated the SWIFT data.

 

[TheDoctor]

Rush is not going to jail for his viagra incident. The good news is that Roy Black really earned his fees (some of which will go to some good Democrats down the road). The combination of Roy Black (a good democrat) and the ACLU is hard to beat.