|
 |
|
|
INTERNSHIPS
The research team that brings you The Progress Report and Think Progress needs interns! Click here for more information.
GOOD NEWS"Super Size Me" director Morgan Spurlock will direct Chris Mooney's bestseller, "The Republican War on Science," as a documentary project next year.
TALKING POINTSSpies Like U.S.
STATE WATCHVIRGINIA: Gov. Mark Warner (D) "bans Virginia state agencies from discriminating against gays in hiring and promotions."
MISSOURI: Debate over when human life begins hits Missouri courtroom proceedings as part of a legal challenge stem cell research.
BUDGETS: New survey finds state finances across the country "are the healthiest they've been in years."
BLOG WATCHDAILY KOS: Gonzales this A.M.: Congress gave Bush the authority to spy on Americans. Feingold responds.
ESCHATON: NBC's Andrea Mitchell: "the people most likely to be swept up in this are listed in a Homeland Security database, Brian, called Muslims of America."
THE PLANK: More on the CATO Institute scholar who wrote payola columns for Jack Abramoff.
WASHINGTON NOTE: Colin Powell validates outlines of Wilkerson's "Rumsfeld-Cheney Cabal" comment.
ARCHIVESProgress Report
STUDENTS
Politics with an Attitude: Everyone from Barack Obama to Stephen Colbert talks to Campus Progress. Right-wingers seem scared of us. Find out why here.
|
|
|
|
by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney
Amanda Terkel and Payson Schwin
NOTE: There will be no Progress Report tomorrow. The Progress Report will return on Wednesday, December 21.
NATIONAL SECURITY
The Truth About Bush's Warrantless Spying
On Saturday, President Bush acknowledged that he had personally authorized a secret warrantless domestic surveillance program more than three dozen times since October 2001. Bush's actions run contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids "unreasonable searches" and sets out specific requirements for warrants, including "probable cause." They demonstrate a dangerous disregard for the basic liberties that serve as our nation's guiding values. They are also in violation of federal law. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance, except as "authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order." Moreover, since 1978, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(f) has directed that Title III and FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted." The President's actions were not necessary; if he had legitimate concerns about FISA, "the appropriate response would have been to go to Congress and expand it, not to blatantly violate the law." Below, we debunk the administration's attempts to justify Bush's actions.
FACT: BUSH PROGRAM WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS: Vice President Cheney said of the surveillance program, "It's the kind of capability, if we'd had before 9/11, might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11." This claim is false and sensational. The secret surveillance program authorized by President Bush did not provide the government with any new "capability." The government "already had the capacity to read your mail and your e-mail and listen to your telephone conversations. All it had to do was obtain a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The burden of proof for obtaining a warrant was relaxed a bit after 9/11, but even before the attacks the court hardly ever rejected requests." Indeed, from 1979 to 2002, the FISA court issued 15,264 surveillance warrants. Not a single warrant application was rejected.
FACT: BUSH PROGRAM DID NOT IMPROVE SPEED OF OBTAINING WARRANTS: Another claim made by members of the administration is that President Bush needed "to skirt the normal process of obtaining court-approved search warrants for the surveillance because it was too cumbersome for fast-paced counterterrorism investigations." This argument has several flaws. For one, the New York Times notes, "government officials are able to get an emergency warrant from the secret court within hours, sometimes minutes, if they can show an imminent threat." More importantly, Section 1805 of the FISA Act states that the government can begin a wiretap as soon as it determines a need and can wait up to 72 hours before obtaining a warrant. The Bush administration "did not seek to do that under the special program."
FACT: DISCLOSURE OF PROGRAM DID NOT UNDERMINE NATIONAL SECURITY: After the New York Times published its story, President Bush and other top administration officials refused to confirm the existence of the surveillance program, arguing that doing so would endanger the American people. Bush said on Friday he wouldn't "comment about the veracity of the story...because it would compromise our ability to protect the people." Press Secretary Scott McClellan and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both repeated this line. Within hours, however, President Bush not only confirmed the existence of the program in a Saturday morning address, but provided details about how it worked. In other words, the administration's initial refusal to comment was motivated by public relations, not security, concerns. The scope of surveillance under FISA -- which has long been public -- is the same under President Bush's secretive program.
FACT: RICE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT GAVE BUSH AUTHORITY TO EAVESDROP WITHOUT WARRANT: Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice was asked a simple question: what is the specific statute or law that gives President Bush the authority to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant? She had no answer. Instead, Rice referenced unspecified "authorities that derive from his role as Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country," then explained she was "not a lawyer and I am quite certain that the Attorney General will address a lot of these questions." Indeed, Rice said several times that she is "not a lawyer." That fact is irrelevant. Rice was the National Security Adviser when President Bush authorized the NSA program, and said today that she was aware of Bush’s decision at the time. Shouldn’t she know why it was legal?
FACT: SOME CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS NOT TOLD OF PROGRAM: Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice defended the eavesdropping program by arguing that congressional leaders -- specifically "leaders of the relevant oversight intelligence committees" -- had been briefed on the NSA activities. This is apparently not true. At the time the program was initiated, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). On Friday's "Nightline," Graham made clear he had never been briefed by the administration about the program: "There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to...begin unwarranted, illegal, and I think unconstitutional, eavesdropping on American citizens." Additionally, in a letter issued last night, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she had been "advised by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Ranking Democrat on House Intelligence Committee, that the Bush Administration reversed its decision to brief the full House Intelligence Committee on the details of the activities."
FACT: IN CONFIRMATION HEARING, GONZALES DENIED BUSH WOULD ACT BEYOND CRIMINAL STATUTES: In a classified legal opinion, the administration argued the President had the power to order the warrantless search pursuant to his authority as commander-in-chief to wage war against al-Qaeda. During his Attorney General confirmation hearings in January 2005, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) asked Gonzales specifically whether the president "at least in theory [has] the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he's commander in chief?" After trying to dodge the question for a time, Gonzales issued this denial: "Senator, this president is not — I — it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." Later, Feingold asked Gonzales to "commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it." Gonzales replied, "I will advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir."
IRAQ
A Change in Tone, Not Strategy
Millions of Sunnis joined the political process over the weekend, as Iraqis oversaw an election that was "among the freest ever in the Arab world." Despite the good news, much difficult work remains to ensure all members of Iraqi society have a stake in their democracy. While Bush admitted as much during his speech last night -- the fourth on Iraq in six days -- he was not candid about his strategy. "In all three aspects of our strategy -- security, democracy, and reconstruction," Bush claimed, "we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked." In fact, in his four speeches, the President has not announced any significant change in approach. His message has been the same: stay the course.
CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS: The new members of Iraq's National Assembly now begin the four-month process of rewriting their Constitution. "As it now stands, the Constitution is an open invitation for a breakup of Iraq and for years of bloody civil and regional war," the New York Times opined this weekend. "At a minimum, the committee needs to create a much stronger central government, to allocate oil revenues fairly to all regions, and to protect civil rights and women's rights from clerical encroachment." Coming to an agreement about these issues will be difficult: previous negotiations broke down over issues such as federalism, oil, and references to the old Baathist regime. Significant changes will be necessary to avoid another Sunni boycott. (For more, see American Progress's upcoming event.)
STATUS OF IRAQI SECURITY FORCES REMAINS MURKY: The security situation in Iraq will need to vastly improve before political reconciliation and economic reconstruction can be successful. Yet the status of Iraq's security forces continues to be hidden under a cloud of administration rhetoric. Bush claimed last night that "more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the enemy" and "more than 50 are taking the lead." Yet our own generals told Congress a few months ago that the number of Iraqi battalions capable of fighting on their own dropped from three to one." "[T]raining of Iraqi Security Forces started more slowly than we hoped," Bush added. "At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions ready for combat." This contradicts what Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said last year, when he touted the existence of more than 120,000 trained Iraq Security Forces. President Bush needs to come clean about the true capabilities of these forces and whether their loyalties lie with Iraq or with their own militias.
CHENEY STILL WEARING ROSE-COLORED GLASSES: The President's frank acknowledgment that not all had gone as planned in Iraq contradicted Vice President Cheney's own assessment of the situation. "I think we've turned the corner, if you will," Cheney said yesterday during a visit to Iraq. "I think when we look back from 10 years hence, we'll see that the year '05 was in fact a watershed year here in Iraq." Cheney also stood behind his prewar claim that the Iraqis would welcome U.S. forces in their country. "I don't think I got it wrong," Cheney said. "I think the vast majority of them think of us as liberators." A recent Time Magazine poll found the majority of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq.
NO END IN SIGHT: Bush said he will not will make decisions on troops levels "based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington." (In 1999, Bush said, "I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.") Bush should follow his own advice. American Progress has a way for him to do so -- it's called Strategic Redeployment.
|
Under the Radar
CONGRESS -- 'SHAMEFUL' STEVENS FORCES ARCTIC DRILLING INTO DEFENSE BILL: Early this morning the House agreed "to a five-year budget plan for cutting spending for Medicaid and other entitlement programs" by $39.7 billion and a separate measure to open the Alaskan wilderness to oil drilling. If Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) gets his way, the Senate will also vote for drilling in the Arctic Reserve. Stevens has attached the drilling provision to the "must pass" 2006 defense spending bill that "has widespread support in both parties" because it funds fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and hurricane reconstruction on the Gulf Coast. "The levees will be paid for when we drill in ANWR," Stevens said. A Washington Post editorial wrote, "Mr. Stevens has for years failed to obtain congressional approval. Only by making inappropriate use of his position as chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee and by shamefully threatening to hold up a bill that no one in Congress wants to see fail might he finally see the measure pass."
ETHICS -- ABRAMOFF'S VERY OWN ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS: Business Week reports that Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute, "resigned from the libertarian think tank on Dec. 15 after admitting that he had accepted payments from indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff for writing op-ed articles favorable to the positions of some of Abramoff's clients." Bandow, who wrote a syndicated column for Copley News, admitted "he had accepted money from Abramoff for writing between 12 and 24 articles over a period of years, beginning in the mid '90s." Bandow was "typically paid $2,000 per column to address specific topics of interest to Abramoff's clients." Peter Ferrara, "a senior policy adviser at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, says he, too, took money from Abramoff to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients." Unlike Bandow, Ferrara defended his conduct: "I do that all the time. I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future."
CORRUPTION -- FRIST USES AIDS CHARITY TO PAY POLITICAL CRONIES: The AIDS charity run by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) -- who is currently under investigation for his sale of HCA, Inc. stock -- suspiciously raised $4.4 million from just 18 sources, who gave "between $97,950 and $267,735 each." The organization gave "$3 million it raised to charitable AIDS causes, such as Africare and evangelical Christian groups with ties to Republicans - Franklin Graham's Samaritan Purse and the Rev. Luis Cortes' Esperanza USA, for example," and the rest went to overhead, including to consulting firms with ties to Frist's friends. One firm was run by Frist's longtime political fundraiser and another was run by the wife of Rep. Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-MO). Ken Cooper, the Federal Election Commission's former public disclosure chief, Cooper said the consulting fees were "excessively high" and "the natural question is were they given to the Senate majority leader to gain favor or were they given for true charitable purposes?"
ETHICS -- BUSH FUNDERS MAKE OUT BIG WITH ADMINISTRATION POLICIES: An investigation by the Toledo Blade finds that America's business leaders have given more than $75 million to President Bush, and in return, "Bush Administration policies, grand and obscure, have financially benefited companies or lobbying clients tied to at least 200 of the President's largest campaign fund-raisers." Policies often followed specific requests from large funders, who gave or raised at least $100,000 during his 2004 re-election campaign. In one case, the bankruptcy bill Bush passed in April -- which makes the path out of debt even rougher for society's most vulnerable -- was "initially crafted by a financial services lobbyist" and backed by MBNA's CEOs, who began reaching out to Bush before he was president and each raised over $200,000 for Bush in 2000. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that "MBNA surpassed Enron last year to become the largest corporate patron of Mr. Bush's career."
CIVIL LIBERTIES -- HOMELAND SECURITY DEPT. MONITORING INTER-LIBRARY LOANS: The Standard-Times reports "A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called 'The Little Red Book.'" The student "was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor [Robert] Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism." Pontbriand said, "I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book. Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it." According to the student, "the Homeland Security agents told him the book was on a 'watch list.'"
|
|
Topic Cloud
Archives