http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:59:21 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/23/115921.php Terry TurnerBy now, every political junikie in the country has read the Drudge Report post that Presidents Carter and Clinton both conducted warrantless searches.Some people have held these case up as permission or even "precedent" for the current round of warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.But the Drudge Report provided only partial information and failed to provide a timeline.Clearing up the ConfusionPresidents Carter and Clinton did carry out warrantless searches.But Congress reigned them in each time.Congress passed the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) in 1978. It outlawed electronic eavesdropping without a warrant. President Carter did issue an executive order -- as Drudge reported -- allowing warrantless wiretaps. But they had to comply with the rules under FISA. FISA allows warrantless searches for 72 hours before seeking a warrant:1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section. -- Executive Order 12139, May 23, 1979 Clinton and Warrantless SearchesPresident Clinton ordered a warrantless "physical" search -- which was allowed at the time (early 1990s) because of a loophole in the FISA. Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick (right) is quoted in the Drudge Report:"[The President] has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." -- Jamie Gorelick, July 14, 1994What Drudge fails to mention is that the statement came in testimony to Congress. She was not talking about electronic eavesdropping, but about maintaining the warrantless "physical" search loophole.Congress closed the loophole in 1995.The subsequent Clinton executive order Drudge mentions was issued to adjust proceedures to bring them in line with what the new FISA amendment required -- outlawing physical searches.The Bush Argument Now, none of this has anything to do with the legal arguments the Bush administration have put out.They are not citing anything in the actual FISA, nor any loopholes it left open. FISA specifically addresses elecrtonic eavesdropping. And it requires the administration to request -- within 72 hours of starting wiretaps -- a warrant fromt eh FISA secret court.The Bush administration says they had the "implied consent of Congress" to conduct the warrantless searches.They base this on the September 18, 2001, Congressional act authorizing the use of force in response to the 9/11 attacks. No where in that act does it say FISA is suspended nor that the President can spy on Americans. No one in Congress has come forward to say that was the intent of Congress.In fact, former Sen Tom Daschle -- who was the sponsor of the Senate version of the act and who supervised much of the debate on it -- says the idea of giving Bush the authority to ignore FISA or any other law never came up.The act was intended to free the President to use military force -- freeing him from possible constraints like the War Powers Act -- to conduct the war overseas. (Crossposted at Watching Washington) Politics41409@blogcritics.org Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:59:21 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/20/112806.php Terry Turner Newsweek reports that President Bush pulled out all the stops as he tried to talk the New York Times into killing the story on domestic spying:The president was so desperate to kill the New York Times' eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper's editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn't just out of concern about national security."Jonathan Alter raises important concerns in his commentary on the meeting and the president's insistence that the story hurts national security.The big question is: How?It's pretty obvious that if you're a terrorist operating in the US, you're likely to be the target of snoops and spies. Terrorists expect that to happen. How does being able to spy on them without a warrant change our tactics? It doesn't. How does exposing the fact that the obvious spying is being done without warrants threaten national security? It doesn't.Next. The FISA court that issues warrants in national-security cases - and issued 1228 of 1228 requests in 2002 - when President Bush issed the domestic spying order. This leads us to the next question:If you're getting all the warrants you want, why do you suddenly go off the reservation and start spying without warrants?If you think like a lawyer or a cop, the obvious answer is that the administration is spying on people whom they know the court would never let them spy on.We've seen the NBC report on the Pentagon spying on Quakers and peace groups. You have to wonder if there are other non-terrorists in the feds' sights. And if you think like a politician, you think of Nixon's enemy lists and Clinton's FBI-file scandal, and wonder if this administration is also using government resources to keep tabs on political opponents.Which leads us to the question that ties these two together:If exposing warrantless spying can't possibly affect national security, why is the administration so worried about it being exposed?Answer: Political damage in 2005, a Democratic majority elected in 2006, and articles of impeachment in 2007. Crossposted at WatchingWashington.comPhoto Credit: The White House Politics41272@blogcritics.org Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:28:06 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/03/104548.php Terry TurnerPresident Coolidge came down in a railroad train With a little fat man with a note-pad in his hand. The President say, "Little fat man isn't it a shame What the river has done to this poor cracker's land?" -- Randy Newman, "Louisianna, 1927" I sat in the Hard Times Cafe Friday, eating a chilli dog, listening to Johnny Cash on the juke box and watching live coverage of the Katrina aftermath on one of the cable news channels.It was right after President Bush finally made it to the Gulf Coast -- five long, painful days after Katrina's visit. I watched on TV as the first National Guard convoys rolled in. Giant trucks, in water up to their windshields, moving slowly and cautiously through the mix of Mississippi, sewage, and toxic chemicals.They rolled toward the Convention Center where thousands of people had been trapped for days, surrounded by the tide that kept this convoy to a crawl.I wondered about the timing. But then I'm cynical.I wondered how thousands of people, trapped by this toxic tide were finally getting help, just minutes after President Bush flew overhead. How people had begged for help, demanded help for five days -- then President Bush shows up. Five days after the hurricane, the President declared that the response was slow. Suddenly things get snapping.It would have been great political theatre -- if so many Americans weren't tired of the show.History Fails to Repeat ItselfPresident Bush will probably always be remembered as the President with the bullhorn (right) -- standing in the rubble of 9/11, shakily speaking to firefighters at "Ground Zero" and finding his voice as he declared "I hear you" and promising "the whole world will hear you."That, too, was political theatre -- though it was improvisation. It was unexpected, it just happened. And the thing about improv -- you can tell when it's rehearsed. That's what the Gulf coast photo ops looked like.And for the President's performance, the week was a theatre of the absurd.Instead of firemen, the President's supporting cast on the Gulf Coast was the Coast Guard. Helicopters that had been rescuing stranded people were grounded, crews who'd been saving lives were lined up at parade rest to provide a backdrop for politicians. Lifesaving equipment and manpower reduced to mere props for politicians and the TV cameras -- while Americans waited for help.Showtime for the PresidentPresident Bush was at a country music concert (left, AP photo), somehow linked to VJ-Day remembrances, while Katrina killed Americans on the Gulf coast.That was Monday.By Tuesday, Americans were ready for the response. We're quick like that. Some call it "a society of instant gratification." Others call it "the American way."Help never came.Americans were saying on Tuesday what it took President Bush until Friday to say -- that the response was too slow.That's three days.Oddly, the same amount of time it takes to run a really accurate benchmark poll. Something the White House likely did to guage Americans' opinion of how the Katrina aftermath was handled. It wasn't like they were doing anything else.The Poll-Driven PresidentWe don't know what the White House polls showed -- probably pretty close to what the what the public ones did.On Thursday morning, Taegan Goddard posted results of public polling at PoliticalWire.com:A new Survey USA tracking poll finds that 59% of Americans say the federal government "is not doing enough to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina," up from 50% just 24 hours ago. Other findings: 75% of Americans today say that local officials are unprepared to meet the challenge that is before them. This is up 14 points, from 61%, in the past 24 hours. 34% of Americans today say the government's response to the hurricane has been surprisingly disorganized, up 14 points in 24 hours. 31% of Americans today say the city of New Orleans should not be rebuilt, up 7 points in the past 24 hours. I've followed lots of polls and been in on a lot of photo ops -- both as a reporter and a political manager. I lost count of how many sometime in the Reagan administration. From my experience -- and from this data -- handlers could craft a photo op where the President appears to come to the rescue, like the calvary arriving at the nick of time, whipping the slow response into shape.Suddenly, the convoys roll in as the President circles overhead in Marine One (left).In this case it was like the calvary arriving four days after the Battle of the Little Big Horn.Custer could have predicted the next poll numbers.On Friday evening, Mr Goddard had an update showing the politicians were in even bigger trouble:The latest Survey USA tracking poll shows that 68% of Americans now think the government isn't doing enough to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. This is up dramatically from yesterday's tracking poll.In addition, the majority (53%) do not approve of President Bush's response to the tradegy; only 40% approve. The Gulf Coast photo ops were not kind to President Bush. This was not the man with the bullhorn saying, "I hear you" and promising the "whole world will hear you."Here he was merely echoing what Americans had been saying for four days -- the response was too slow. President Bush's response was too slow. And he didn't hear us this time. He didn't hear us for four days.[Crossposted at Watching Washington] Politics35404@blogcritics.org Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:45:48 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/02/210811.php Terry TurnerSome estimates say Katrina destroyed 40,000 homes in New Orleans alone. Thousands more were wiped out around the Gulf. President Bush -- arriving on the Gulf Coast -- focused on one house -- Sen Trent Lott's (R-MS):"The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." -- President Bush, September 2, 2005 It's the kind of comment more in tune with a political fundraiser opening joke than a disaster scene. The President's photo op upon arriving on the Gulf Coast probably did little to help the administration's image over the last few days. It was basically a briefing of items that could have been handled on the flight down -- or better yet -- three days ago. It certainly didn't make the President look like he was on top of things.He appeared detached, as if not really listening to Gov Halley Barbour (R-MS). The President nodded his head awkwardly, in no logical reaction to anything being said to him.Behind them were parked helicopters and uniformed crewmembers standing at parade rest. Good for the cameras -- not so good for the people waiting to be airlifted out of the flood zone for days now. (WhiteHouse.gov) Politics35377@blogcritics.org Fri, 2 Sep 2005 21:08:11 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/24/095609.php Terry TurnerSSgt Jason Rivera is a Marine recruiter in Pittsburgh. Thought he had a hot prospect. A high school student was interested in joining the Corps. So SSgt Rivera went over to the kid's house.It was a large home in a well-to-do part of the city. And things looked promising. American flags fluttered around the yard in support of the troops. The kid's mom was wearing an American flag t-shirt when she met the Marine. And she declared, "I support you."But the flags and lip service were all the support mom wanted to give. She stopped the Marine dead in his tracks when he said he was there to talk about recruiting her son."Military service isn't for our son. It isn't for our kind of people." --Unidentified Suburban Mother, quoted in the Post-Gazette Military sociologists are calling this sort of thing "patriotism lite." It's part of a disconnect in which civilians see the military as a different class, that civilians shouldn't have to sacrifice for a war effort, and that service members are paid to do a job -- so do it and don't complain.Obviously, this doesn't go down well with service members.Terry Neal of the Washington Post takes up the issue of the affluent and military service. He looks at exit polls and finds that the affluent were the most likely to support President Bush in the last election.Mr. Neal also finds that the affluent are the least likely to enlist.He cites a couple of researchers. Robert Cushing -- a retired professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin -- tracked American deaths in Iraq by where they came from in the US. He found a disproportionate number of the war dead were whites from small, poor, rural areas.But it isn't the very poor who are sacrificing. They're also left out.David R. Segal -- director of the Center for Research on Military Organizations at the University of Maryland -- studied that trend before the Iraq War. He found that the very poor are excluded from military service because of criminal records or insufficient education.Meanwhile, recruiters have relied on incentives, cash, training, and education to lure new recruits. Kids from more affluent families don't need those things and are less likely to join.And Army records themselves bear out both observations. They find that the affluent and very poor are under-represented in the Army. Crossposted at Watching Washington Politics34716@blogcritics.org Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:56:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/27/095153.php Terry TurnerIs America at war -- or just the American military? That's the question in the back of the minds of a growing number of troops.Troops fresh from the fight are beginning to question why there is no sign on the homefront of a war overseas. No serious talk about a draft No tax hikes to raise the $5 billion a month to cover war costs No war bond drives or rationing or other efforts from past wars to unify the people In short, there is no sacrifice.Over the 4th of July weekend, I left up a post asking readers to post their sacrifices in the War on Terror -- of the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" as it's now called.I got only one example.The International Herald Tribune quotes a recently returned US officer: "Nobody in Americais asked to sacrifice,except us." The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines spoke to the paper only with the promise of anonimity -- lest they sacrifice their military career on top of their other sacrifices.President Bush has only called for symbolic support for the troops, most recently in his June 28th speech at Fort Bragg:"Find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom by flying the flag, sending a letter to our troops in the field or helping the military family down the street." --President Bush, June 28Retired MAJ GEN Robert Scales -- former commandant of the Army War College says he's hearing from a lot of current officers who feel the military is increasingly isolated from the rest of Americans. He sees politicians as wanting to declare war abroad and maintain normalacy at home.This attitude -- having their cake and eating it too -- is an indication that politicians themselves don't want to make sacrifices in the War on Terror -- or the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism or whatever name the politicians have decided to use this week. Politics33205@blogcritics.org Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:51:53 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/27/094325.php Terry TurnerIn case "The Global War on Terror" wasn't catchy enough, the administration is trying out a new name. And in typical Washington-ese, it's a mouthful.In recent speeches, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has quit using "The Global War on Terror." Instead, he's been calling the fight, "A Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism."The administration believes the "Global War on Terrorism" focused too much attention on the military campaign. Administration officials tell the New York Times that the old term had outlived its usefulness. But the fight still goes on. As the Times reports:Administration and Pentagon officials say the revamped campaign has grown out of meetings of President Bush's senior national security advisers that began in January, and it reflects the evolution in Mr. Bush's own thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks.This sort of thing is called "branding." The folks at Building Brands define it as "a collection of perceptions in the mind of the consumer" (you and me and the other 300 million Americans being the consumers of administration information on how this "global struggle" is going).And if the administration is changing the "brand" to reflect less and less on the military campaign -- it's a likely sign their attempts to tie the Iraq War to the global struggle isn't going as well as the marketers in the White House had hoped.No word on al Qaeda changing its name anytime soon. Their branding has kept them in business for 1,415 days since 9/11. That's longer than the "Thousand Year Reich" and the "Empire of the Rising Sun" lasted after Pearl Harbor -- just 1,347 days. And let's face it, those names were some serious bad-guy branding.The "Global War on Terror" hasn't brought Osama bin Laden in -- "dead or alive." Maybe a flashy new name, like "The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" will. [Crossposted at Watching Washington] Politics33204@blogcritics.org Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:43:25 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/09/194541.php Terry TurnerThis small railroad overpass may be the most dangerous bridge in America. It holds the potential to cripple Congress and leave the United States government shut down for months. The solution is simple. But that simple solution would cost a special interest some extra money. So this hole in national security has never been plugged.A New York Times editorial calls this bridge, at 2nd & E Streets, SW, in Washington, DC, "the weakest point in America's defense against terrorism." It's just four blocks from the US Capitol. And the rail traffic across it includes tank cars loaded with deadly chlorine. A single, 90-ton tanker, hit with explosives, rocket propelled grenades, or a truck bomb at this bridge could put the lives of a quarter million federal workers -- and every member of Congress -- in danger. A History of Chlorine Gas Chlorine was one of the first modern chemical weapons, used by the Germans at at the Second Battle of Ypres on April 22, 1915.On 9/11, wastewater treatment managers in Washington, DC realized they had enough chlorine stored in tankers inside the District to kill thousands -- if a hijacked airliner hit them. They were clustered together like battleships at Pearl Harbor. The Washington Post reported on November 10, 2001:"As flames rose from the Pentagon and another plane neared Washington, managers of the region's largest sewage treatment plant had a chilling realization: Their facility across the Potomac River housed 10 rail cars of toxic chemicals, and the rupture of even one would kill thousands within minutes. "Since 9/11, DC's treatment plant has switched to safer disinfectants. But the threat of a chlorine gas cloud spreading over the capital city -- killing Congressmen and Supreme Court Justices, seeping through the White House -- is still real.A "Force Multiplier"The New York Times editorial says this is a well-known and serious threat: "When antiterrorism experts try to predict what could happen in the next 9/11 attack, the dispersal of deadly chemicals is at or near the top of their list. An assault on a chemical plant or a rail car filled with chemicals would turn another unremarkable part of the infrastructure into a powerful instrument of death. An attack on a single rail tanker filled with chlorine could kill or seriously harm 100,000 people in less than an hour. Because of its location in the middle of official Washington, a chlorine leak from a rail tanker on the bridge at Second Street could endanger much of the federal government, including Congress and the Supreme Court." It's easy to spot a chlorine car on a freight train. The stuff is deadly, so the cars are clearly marked in case first responders have to deal with a derailment -- or a bomb attack -- on a train. The Times paints a scenario where a truck bomb is set off under the bridge -- as a clearly marked chlorine car passes overhead -- spraying poisonous chlorine gas across the nation's capital. So a simple terrorist weapon like a bomb multiplies it's force through spreading chlorine gas -- kind of like how terrorists multiplied box cutters into jumbo jets flown into buildings on 9/11.This picture (at left) of the bridgehead was taken just 20 yards from US Capitol grounds -- near the Rayburn and Longworth House Office Buildings -- home offices of two thirds of the US House of Representatives. The Simple Fix The fix is easy. Simply pass a law barring dangerous chemicals from passing directly through DC -- make the chemicals take a route around the city. The DC City Council did that -- but a federal judge blocked the law from taking effect.CSX, the railroad that owns the bridge, doesn't like the city's idea. It'd cost them more money to send cars around the city. And CSX has spent a lot of money on lobbying and campaign contributions. About $12,070,500 on lobbying between 2000 and 2004, and just over $291,000 in campaign contributions during the 2004 election. The Cost to America It could cost America a lot more. If the Congress is ever knocked out in a chemical attack like the one the Times says could happen, it could be four months before the US could take prolonged military action against an attacker. Governors can appoint new Senators. But if a Representative dies in office, the people in his District have to elect a new replacement. That could mean months before Congress could approve the money needed to pay for military action, pass new laws needed to protect against new terror attacks, and simply carry on with the business of keeping the federal government in business. And political infighting could further complicate matters. The bridge is next to the Democratic National Committee's headquarters and just a block from the Republican National Committee's national headquarters. That could create a new level of political chaos as political parties try to rebuild party structures as the country tries to rebuild Congress.In 1996, Bill Clinton ran on the promise of building "A Bridge to the 21st Century." Now, in that new century, CSX runs a dangerous "force multiplier" across a bridge threatening to set this country back in the War on Terror. The solution is simple. If Congress has the resolve to reject the arm twisting of lobbyists and campaign contributions.[Crossposted at Watching Washington] Politics32322@blogcritics.org Sat, 9 Jul 2005 19:45:41 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/01/113040.php Terry Turner SUPREME COURT LINKS Supreme Court Of The United States Senate Judiciary CommitteeContact Your SenatorA History of Supreme Court Nominees Supreme Court Historical Society SCOTUS BlogSupreme Court Nomination BlogLINKS & CONTACT INFORMATION FOR GROUPS IN THE SUPREME COURT NOMINATION DEBATE:CONSERVATIVE:Judicial Confirmation Network PO Box 791 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-0791 info@judicialnetwork.comProgress for America Progress For America, Inc. P.O. Box 19242 Washington, DC 20036Committee for Justice 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Tenth Floor Washington, DC 20004 (202) 481-6850LIBERAL:People for the American Way 2000 M Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 202.467.4999 or 800.326.7329 pfaw@pfaw.orgAlliance for Justice 11 Dupont Circle, NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20036 202.822.6070 -- fax 202.822.6068Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 1629 K Street, NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20006[Photo Credit: US Government][Crossposted at Watching Washington] Politics31881@blogcritics.org Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:30:40 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/01/105618.php Terry Turner [Photo Credit: US Government] Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will retire.Sandra Day O'Connor has been an influential swing vote on the high court. Appointed by President Reagan, she has often taken a liberal position in many court decisions. She has frequently been seen as the key vote in preventing the Supreme Court from overturning Roe v. Wade.Justice O'Connor served from 1975-79 as Maricopa County Superior Court Judge in Phoenix.. Governor Bruce Babbitt appointed her to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 1979. President Reagan nominated Judge O'Connor for Associate Justice on July 7, 1981. The United States Senate confirmed her on September 21, 1981. She took oath on September 25, 1981, as the first woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court.What's Next?The Chicago Tribune lists pros and cons of possible replacements. Analysts narrow the field to three front runners:Judge J. Michael Luttig, 4th U.S. Court of Appeals (Richmond) -- is a crisp writer and principled conservativeJudge Samuel Alito 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals (Philadelphia) -- Sometimes called "Scalito" because of his similarities in opinion to Antonin Scalia, another favorite with conservatives and for the same reason a target for liberalsJudge John Roberts, U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. -- Considered one of the best lawyers to argue before the Supreme Court in recent years, he only recently landed on the bench -- so there's little known about his opinionsOthers on the short list are considered longshots: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- a long time friend and political partner to President Bush, but conservative groups would oppose him as too moderate. Liberals would focus on his role in suggesting the Geneva Conventions could be circumvented in the War on TerrorJudge J. Harvie Wilkinson, 4th U.S. Court of Appeals (Richmond)-- a former editor at the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, and member of the Reagan Justice Department is 61 years old. His age could be a big strike against him.Judge Michael McConnell, 10th U.S. Court of Appeals (Denver) -- considered very unpredictible, conservative on some issues, liberal on others. He also argued against the reasoning of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that put President Bush in the White House in 2000Judge William Pryor, 11th U.S. Court of Appeals (Atlanta) -- has been very critical of Roe v. Wade, making him politically polarizing. A serious long-shot.Expect the White House to act in less than 24 hours to make their nominations. Speed is essential to minimize political infighting over who should get the nomination.[Cross Posted at Watching Washington] Politics31878@blogcritics.org Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:56:18 EDT