The Latest Security State Revelation

A friend sent this wonderfully difficult game to play when there's downtime at work. He's claiming a score of 14, which is truly incredible. After 4 rounds, my high is 2 (And I thought my animosity for the target might help increase my score). Can anyone unseat the champ?


Interesting, though unsurprising, developments on the state of the national security state...It's not just peace groups and activists targeted by PATRIOT Act-empowered government surveillance, but according to one former NSA analyst and whistleblower, Russell Tice, The Gov'ment "monitored all communications," meaning journalists (like James Risen) and all domestic communications included, even while Bush was assuring the public that they were only monitoring "terrorists" and international communications.

If this is true, it just adds more to the case against the Bush Squad and their view of power and secrecy (and lawbreaking). All the more reason to prosecute those views, as well as there purveyors. That Mr. Tice felt he had to wait until Obama was in office to disclose this pertinent tidbit out of fear of retaliation also says a lot. And to think this administration might very well go off into the sunset escaping justice, almost entirely, if only it weren't for the fact that History's jurisprudence won't be as derelict...

However, the right-wing that sought to undermine Mr. Tice by saying he had psychological problems when he was revealed as the source for the famous NYT piece on the illegal NSA surveillance program, will no doubt be pleading a similar case. So it's important that Congress gets to the bottom of this by investigating Tice's claims, as he himself has requested, even offering to testify.

In fact, this should happen regardless, seeing that the Senate Judiciary Committee, in 2007, threatened to hold the Bush administration in contempt after issuing subpoenas for information on the warrantless surveillance program and being duly ignored (And that was after 9 prior requests). But given that Congress gave retroactive immunity to the telecoms-----and with considerable Democratic support-----one shouldn't imagine Congress acting without a sustained outcry from the public. But do keep in mind: "Serious, thinking" people don't want Democrats to ruffle any feathers simply because they are in power. So tread lightly in your outrage.

In a similar vein...
The ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA has led to some interesting results. After winning an initial decision in 2006 where the district court found the NSA violated the First and Fourth Amendments, along with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the case was dismissed in 2007 by an appeals court with some really circular logic:

The court ruled that the plaintiffs in the ACLU case do not have the legal standing to sue the NSA for unfairly spying on them because it's not clear that any of them were actually spied on. Of course, because the warrantless wiretapping program is secret, we'll never know who was spied on without a warrant and who wasn't, so it's not clear how anyone could be seen as having the standing to bring a suit.

In other words, the evidence in the case will always be unobtainable even though there have been revelations of illegal wiretapping, and the president has even claimed the "inherent authority" to do so without a warrant. (One might suspect that would be probable cause enough to investigate...And to think the only probable cause necessary for police in Irvine to search my brother's truck was a vase with flowers in it, visible through his rear window. They imagined it was a giant bong that warranted investigation of criminal activity)

To be clear though: the appeals court didn't rule that warrantless surveillance was legal, just that plaintiffs can't bring a suit because the evidence necessary to do so is secret. "It is important to emphasize that the court today did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity" said an ACLU lawyer. But on the other hand, "the only judge to discuss the merits [of the case against the NSA program] clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless surveillance was unlawful." Catch-22?

Absurd.

Lastly, noting the former administration's penchant for secrecy...
Michael Doyle cites the annual Freedom of Information Act report for 2007 and compares it to 1998 to illustrate just how hostile they were to FIOA requests:

Consider: the Defense Department completely granted 61 percent of FOIA requests in Fiscal 1998. In Fiscal 2007, the Defense Department completely granted only 48 percent of FOIA requests. And the Pentagon wasn't alone. The Interior Department fully granted 64 percent of FOIA requests in 1998 but only 47 percent in 2007.

Trust your gov'ment. Just trust 'em----but please don't verify!