While the Senate is still in the midst of debating how much unchecked power to grant the Bush administration as it continues to trample on our civil liberties, I shot off this note to CT Senator and ex-Democrat Joe Lieberman. I don't have much hope that he'll listen, but that's never stopped me from speaking out...
Dear Senator Lieberman:
As the Senate debates the reauthorization of President Bush's warantless eavesdropping program, I urge you to do everything you can to protect the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. The actions of the Bush administration have been anathema to those of us who believe the President does not have the right to trample on the Constitution in the name of national security. Frankly, I am extremely disappointed in your frequent support of Bush policies. In this case I hope you put the Constitution ahead of Bush's ill-conceived policies to protect the U.S. against the threat of Islamic extremism. And that should include voting against any immunity for telecommunications companies that forked over private records without warrants.
Showing posts with label NSA secret wiretaps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NSA secret wiretaps. Show all posts
Monday, February 11, 2008
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Mukasey: Another Attorney General Like Gonzales?
There is now well-documented evidence that the Bush administration is running roughshod over the rule of law, demonstrated by actions such as its warrantless wiretapping and repeated court rebuffs on military tribunals. It is also clear that President Bush has seriously damaged the United States’ moral authority through use of torture, withholding the right to challenge detention and extraordinary rendition.
I would have therefore expected that the Democratic-led Congress would demand that Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey unambiguously declare his opposition to these policies. But the apparent green light from the Senate Judiciary Committee to move forward on the nomination is not reassuring.
As it is clear from Mukasey’s testimony that he cannot be trusted to return integrity to the Department of Justice, he should not be confirmed.
Mukasey has been unable to decide if the practice of waterboarding is torture. Despite the fact that the State Department has criticized other countries for using it. Despite the fact that after World War II, the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for engaging in the practice against U.S. soldiers. Despite that fact that U.S. military officials have called it torture. Even administration apologist Senator John McCain has called it “very exquisite torture.” If Mukasey’s powers of inquiry are so feeble that he can’t collect the facts he needs to come to a decision, then surely he isn’t fit to lead the nation’s law enforcement activities.
Mukasey’s view of executive privilege has more far-reaching consequences for the principles which are the cornerstone of our country’s moral clarity—namely the rule of law. In his testimony, Mukasey stated that it is acceptable for the President to violate laws written by Congress, as long as his actions are within the Constitution. That is dangerous thinking for a country founded upon the separation of powers. It is precisely this arrogance on the part of the Bush administration—that believes it can ignore, rather than challenge, the legislative branch—that is seriously eroding the protection of our constitutional and civil rights.
Hopefully the Democratic controlled Congress will stand up to Bush’s attacks on our country’s principles—as the electorate signaled they wanted last November—by refusing to support the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General.
I would have therefore expected that the Democratic-led Congress would demand that Attorney General-designate Michael Mukasey unambiguously declare his opposition to these policies. But the apparent green light from the Senate Judiciary Committee to move forward on the nomination is not reassuring.
As it is clear from Mukasey’s testimony that he cannot be trusted to return integrity to the Department of Justice, he should not be confirmed.
Mukasey has been unable to decide if the practice of waterboarding is torture. Despite the fact that the State Department has criticized other countries for using it. Despite the fact that after World War II, the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for engaging in the practice against U.S. soldiers. Despite that fact that U.S. military officials have called it torture. Even administration apologist Senator John McCain has called it “very exquisite torture.” If Mukasey’s powers of inquiry are so feeble that he can’t collect the facts he needs to come to a decision, then surely he isn’t fit to lead the nation’s law enforcement activities.
Mukasey’s view of executive privilege has more far-reaching consequences for the principles which are the cornerstone of our country’s moral clarity—namely the rule of law. In his testimony, Mukasey stated that it is acceptable for the President to violate laws written by Congress, as long as his actions are within the Constitution. That is dangerous thinking for a country founded upon the separation of powers. It is precisely this arrogance on the part of the Bush administration—that believes it can ignore, rather than challenge, the legislative branch—that is seriously eroding the protection of our constitutional and civil rights.
Hopefully the Democratic controlled Congress will stand up to Bush’s attacks on our country’s principles—as the electorate signaled they wanted last November—by refusing to support the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Whose privacy is more important: gun dealers' or American citizens'?
To recognize just how much sway the National Rifle Association has over the U.S. Congress, consider this: Congress has taken more action to protect the “privacy” of law-breaking gun dealers than it has to protect the privacy of Americans from President Bush’s likely unconstitutional program of secret domestic wiretapping without search warrants.
Led by Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas), pro-gun legislators in the House continue to block efforts by local law enforcement officials and over two hundred mayors—from red and blue states—to access federal gun sales data collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Until four years ago when Tiahrt and his many gun-loving allies (Democrats and Republicans) restricted access to the data, it was used effectively to track down the 1 percent of gun dealers who are responsible for supplying a substantial majority of guns used in crimes.
Just this week, the House Appropriations Committee blocked attempts by responsible legislators to reduce the Tiahrt restrictions on the use of federal gun sales data to staunch the flow of illegal firearms. Apparently our gun-loving Congress believes the mission of the ATF is to protect the privacy of illegal gun suppliers rather than to reduce the 30,000 yearly gun deaths. So much so that they actually want to criminalize the unauthorized use of gun sales information by law enforcement officials (that is, sharing gun crime data to detect trends that could identify the source of illegal gun sales).
Yet contrast this with the feeble efforts by the House and Senate to get to the bottom of the Bush administration’s secret domestic wiretapping program. That constitutionally suspect program jeopardizes the privacy rights of untold numbers of American citizens by blatantly circumventing legal means to conduct secret wiretapping (as authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).
While the Republican-led Congress (abetted by a not inconsequential number of Democrats) was vigorous in protecting the privacy rights of gun dealers since the passage of the Tiarht amendment in 2003, they were far less vigorous in protecting the privacy rights of the broader citizenry. While still in control of Congress last year, Republicans were more interested in finding ways to legalize Bush’s illegal program than they were in investigating the full breadth of his attack on our constitutional protections. The argument that shutting down the secret eavesdropping program would aid terrorists is a red herring—as the means for conducting secret wiretapping within the law is already in place, using FISA.
Could our elected representatives have their priorities any more confused?
Led by Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas), pro-gun legislators in the House continue to block efforts by local law enforcement officials and over two hundred mayors—from red and blue states—to access federal gun sales data collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Until four years ago when Tiahrt and his many gun-loving allies (Democrats and Republicans) restricted access to the data, it was used effectively to track down the 1 percent of gun dealers who are responsible for supplying a substantial majority of guns used in crimes.
Just this week, the House Appropriations Committee blocked attempts by responsible legislators to reduce the Tiahrt restrictions on the use of federal gun sales data to staunch the flow of illegal firearms. Apparently our gun-loving Congress believes the mission of the ATF is to protect the privacy of illegal gun suppliers rather than to reduce the 30,000 yearly gun deaths. So much so that they actually want to criminalize the unauthorized use of gun sales information by law enforcement officials (that is, sharing gun crime data to detect trends that could identify the source of illegal gun sales).
Yet contrast this with the feeble efforts by the House and Senate to get to the bottom of the Bush administration’s secret domestic wiretapping program. That constitutionally suspect program jeopardizes the privacy rights of untold numbers of American citizens by blatantly circumventing legal means to conduct secret wiretapping (as authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).
While the Republican-led Congress (abetted by a not inconsequential number of Democrats) was vigorous in protecting the privacy rights of gun dealers since the passage of the Tiarht amendment in 2003, they were far less vigorous in protecting the privacy rights of the broader citizenry. While still in control of Congress last year, Republicans were more interested in finding ways to legalize Bush’s illegal program than they were in investigating the full breadth of his attack on our constitutional protections. The argument that shutting down the secret eavesdropping program would aid terrorists is a red herring—as the means for conducting secret wiretapping within the law is already in place, using FISA.
Could our elected representatives have their priorities any more confused?
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Threatening American values: flag burning and torture
Which do you think is the greater threat to American values: the protester who burns an American flag, or a President who, by all indications, has consistently and flagrantly violated U.S. laws and international treaties? From the righteous speeches by Republican Senators in support of a constitutional amendment to prohibit desecration of the flag, you would think it was the former.
Would that these same “defenders” of our constitution were equally vigorous in protecting us from the excesses of the Bush administration’s grab for unchecked executive power. Whether it involves warrantless domestic spying, secret investigation of Americans’ phone and banking records, claiming (and exercising) the right to imprison anybody, indefinitely, with no right to due process, or condoning torture, the Republican Congress has acquiesced, even defended, President Bush’s desire to do virtually anything he wants in the war on terror, unchecked by Congressional oversight or judicial review.
To me, that is far more sinister than the individual who chooses to burn the American flag, as unseemly as that is. But the Republican Congress is more intent on finding ways to call its opponents unpatriotic – for anybody who dares to disagree with it – than it is on taking President Bush to task for the enormous damage he has done to our country’s values and reputation.
Would that these same “defenders” of our constitution were equally vigorous in protecting us from the excesses of the Bush administration’s grab for unchecked executive power. Whether it involves warrantless domestic spying, secret investigation of Americans’ phone and banking records, claiming (and exercising) the right to imprison anybody, indefinitely, with no right to due process, or condoning torture, the Republican Congress has acquiesced, even defended, President Bush’s desire to do virtually anything he wants in the war on terror, unchecked by Congressional oversight or judicial review.
To me, that is far more sinister than the individual who chooses to burn the American flag, as unseemly as that is. But the Republican Congress is more intent on finding ways to call its opponents unpatriotic – for anybody who dares to disagree with it – than it is on taking President Bush to task for the enormous damage he has done to our country’s values and reputation.
Monday, January 23, 2006
How much more Bush can we take?
President Clinton was impeached for lying about highly inappropriate personal behavior which had nothing to do with how he governed or protected our nation. Fast forward to today, when nearly three-quarters of Americans believe President Bush was “hiding something” or “mostly lying” about the evidence for weapons of mass destruction, and half of Americans believe he “intentionally misled” us into the war in Iraq (The New York Times/CBS News Poll 12/8/05).
That alone should be enough for the Congress to start asking some tough questions about possible deception by the Bush Administration.
Yet this high level of mistrust was before it was disclosed that President Bush secretly authorized the N.S.A. to conduct wiretaps of communications with Americans without court order. There is widespread belief, across the political spectrum, that this program may be illegal. At the very least, Bush has continued to lie to the American people about his conduct of the war on terror. How else to explain a remark he made in Buffalo, NY in 2004 that “a wiretap requires a court order”? That was made more than two years after he authorized the N.S.A. activity.
If that doesn’t send a chill down your back, how about the repeated assertions by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that terrorism detainees are being treated “humanely” – despite case after case of abuse, torture and even death, many too gruesome to mention. The Bush administration claims that this is just the work of a few errant soldiers, yet the ACLU has obtained over 70,000 pages of government documents covering what surely is a much more pervasive problem, for which President Bush is holding no senior officials accountable. In one specific instance, the CIA inspector general found in 2004 that some aspects of his agency’s treatment of detainees might constitute cruel and inhuman treatment as defined by an international treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory.
While Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was busy last December trying to convince Europeans that “the United States does not condone torture,” the Administration was doing all it could to keep the Congress from passing an amendment prohibiting torture. What does that tell you about the President’s commitment to human rights and the truth?
On these critical issues of national security and fundamental American values, it is time for Congress to aggressively and tirelessly work to uncover the facts about whether President Bush has lied and broken the law in prosecuting the war on terror.
Indeed, Congress should go a step further and appoint an independent counsel to conduct this inquiry. It tolerated a 10-year, $20 million Independent Counsel investigation of a Clinton cabinet secretary, Henry Cisneros, for lying about payments to his mistress. Surely it can find the wherewithal to investigate an Administration that is quite clearly taking enormous liberties with the truth, and perhaps more.
That alone should be enough for the Congress to start asking some tough questions about possible deception by the Bush Administration.
Yet this high level of mistrust was before it was disclosed that President Bush secretly authorized the N.S.A. to conduct wiretaps of communications with Americans without court order. There is widespread belief, across the political spectrum, that this program may be illegal. At the very least, Bush has continued to lie to the American people about his conduct of the war on terror. How else to explain a remark he made in Buffalo, NY in 2004 that “a wiretap requires a court order”? That was made more than two years after he authorized the N.S.A. activity.
If that doesn’t send a chill down your back, how about the repeated assertions by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that terrorism detainees are being treated “humanely” – despite case after case of abuse, torture and even death, many too gruesome to mention. The Bush administration claims that this is just the work of a few errant soldiers, yet the ACLU has obtained over 70,000 pages of government documents covering what surely is a much more pervasive problem, for which President Bush is holding no senior officials accountable. In one specific instance, the CIA inspector general found in 2004 that some aspects of his agency’s treatment of detainees might constitute cruel and inhuman treatment as defined by an international treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory.
While Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was busy last December trying to convince Europeans that “the United States does not condone torture,” the Administration was doing all it could to keep the Congress from passing an amendment prohibiting torture. What does that tell you about the President’s commitment to human rights and the truth?
On these critical issues of national security and fundamental American values, it is time for Congress to aggressively and tirelessly work to uncover the facts about whether President Bush has lied and broken the law in prosecuting the war on terror.
Indeed, Congress should go a step further and appoint an independent counsel to conduct this inquiry. It tolerated a 10-year, $20 million Independent Counsel investigation of a Clinton cabinet secretary, Henry Cisneros, for lying about payments to his mistress. Surely it can find the wherewithal to investigate an Administration that is quite clearly taking enormous liberties with the truth, and perhaps more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
