Lies, Damn Lies and Right-wing Whoppers
As expected, the criminal regime occupying Washington continues to assert its Divine Right to break the law. The laughably mislabelled Department of Justice (Orwell, anyone?) has formally asked a federal judge to allow the National Security Agency (see previous parenthetical) to continue its warrantless eavsdopping on American citizens, which that same judge has already ruled both criminal and unconstitutional. She has also issued a permanent injuction against the felonious conduct, which the NSA is flagrantly flouting. The parties (ACLU on one side, brownshirts on the other) go before her again September 7th to argue over whether she should stay that injunction. Until that time, it is in effect, and, true to form, the gangsters who have sworn fealty to Familia Bush are violating it.
And they will continue to do so, no matter what the outcome of the next hearing. The consiglieri are merely going through the legal motions, knowing full well a higher court will eventually get its hands on the case. And when that happens, the fix is in. The matter will ultimately be determined by a Supreme Court packed with lackeys who have pledged allegiance to the racketeer influenced corrupt organization known as the Royalist White House.
In the meantime, the Royalists are running hither and yon blathering speciously and falsely about the case, the decision and, of course, the judge. Representative is a flatulent blast posted in something called "The Post Chronicle" by Jim Kouri, titled, "Liberal-Left Creates Confusion about NSA Surveillance Program." (Loathe as I am to link to such tripe, you can read it here if you feel you must.) Already in the title, Kouri is lying. The "liberal-left" (as opposed to, say, the conservative-left or the liberal-right, I guess) is not the source of confusion about the NSA's criminal activity. What opponents of our Imperial President have pointed out -- factually and accurately -- is that the NSA surveillance program is felonious, and everyone involved is violating the criminal statutes of the United States (including His Imperialness himself).
Kouri wastes no time following the White House script by obfuscating the legal issues and slandering the judge:
"The moment I read in her decision the term 'warrentless wiretaps' I knew Judge Taylor's decision was more political than constitutional. These were not wiretaps. They were intercepts of communications between suspected terrorists overseas and people residing in the United States."
Rarely has a more egregious aggregation of falsehoods ever appeared in a single paragraph written in the English language. Putting aside (for the moment) Kouri's vapid, boilerplate, and completely unsupported assertion that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was practicing politics instead of doing her Constitutional duty, he claims the NSA operation does not involve wiretaps.
Baloney.
Our Puppet King himself said so, when he confirmed the existence of the illegal program on December 17, 2005:
"I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations." (Official White House Transcript)
Of course, he was not taking actions "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution", as anyone who has read either could clearly see. But he left no doubt about what the NSA was up to. It was snooping on phone calls -- and emails and instant messages and other supposedly private communications. Kouri is simply talking through his hat when he says there were no wiretaps. The techniques were not limited to wiretaps, but you can rest assured, phones are being bugged.
And note what His Imperial Maliciousness said about who was targeted: "people with known links to al Qaeda". Not "suspected terrorists overseas", as Kouri falsely asserts. "Known links to al Qaeda" could mean virtually anything -- family members, fellow villagers, people in the same area code. And at no point does the Clown-in-Chief assert that it is the targets who are overseas. They could be (indeed, the lawsuit in question alleges, they are) American citizens in their own homes. Under the admitted surveillance program (and there are others that have been acknowleged but not revealed), only one party to the call need be overseas, and it need not be the "linked" person.
So Kouri, not the "liberal-left", is the one sowing "confusion about the NSA surveillance program". But he doesn't stop there. He then proceeds to conflate domestic eavesdropping -- which is permitted under the inherent police powers of the state when conducted within the limits of the law -- with broader powers conferred on the office of the president by statute and Constitution:
"The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
All of which may be true (though not nearly as sweepingly as Kouri asserts), but all of which is absolutely irrelevant to the NSA domestic spying scandal. Kouri is describing the president's powers as commander-in-chief of the military. But the NSA is not a military organization, even though it is often run by a military officer. It does not operate under military "rules of engagement". It operates under the U.S. Code, civil and criminal. So whatever military authority the president has, under the Constitution and federal statutes, it does not extend to the NSA's domestic operations. Moreover, electronic eavesdropping is not a military action. It is a police action. As such, it is permitted only under the constraints imposed, as Judge Taylor rightly points out, by the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Kouri concludes that Congress specifically granted the Bush Junta the power to eavesdrop on American citizens without court supervision in the Joint Resolution known as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force". That is, quite bluntly, an enormous lie. Here is the entire text (minus the "whereas's") of the resolution:
"Part of any military action is the gathering of intelligence including intelligence obtained through electronic intercepts."
So just what type of "military action" is the Bush Gang planning in, say, Miami? You know, where that "terrorist cell" busted with much fanfare turned out to be merely "aspirational"? None, of course. It's the FBI that busted them, not the 101st Airborne. The AUMF is completely silent on the domestic investigative tools available to law enforcement agencies and intelligence services. There is no way to stretch those words to make them reach the lawless snooping on U.S. citizens.
But Kouri would never be allowed into the right wing "Kool Kidz Klub" without tossing in a few snide remarks about the judge in the case. He makes no pretense of researching her judicial history. Instead, he blithely indicts her as a "Jimmy Carter appointee with a history of activism on the bench". His evidence? She once ruled a patently religious display could not be placed on property owned by taxpayers. (Proving, if nothing else, that the judge has read the First Amendment, and Kouri has not.) He then tosses out a slur at her ethics, with no substantiation. He offers nothing to support his bald assertion that she acts "politically" in ruling on the cases before her.
Before we leave the subject of character assassination, let's give Kouri a little bit of his own medicine. Now, I know nothing about Kouri except for what's in the biographical sketch on his own website (http://jimkouri.us/). That means I know at least as much about his politics, his ethics and his accomplishments as Kouri knows about Judge Taylor. Thus, I can treat him with the same uninformed disdain he treats Her Honor.
This is a man who lists as his leading accomplishment his tenure as the chief (presumably police chief) of a public housing project in New York, which was widely known as "Crack City". Now, honestly, if the place you were in charge of policing earned the reputation as a lawless drug den, would you brag about it? How good a cop does it take to allow the crack plague to fester among society's most vulnerable? If that qualifies him to provide "expert analysis" on the federal statutes regulating government eavesdropping on U.S. citizens, then Paris Hilton is qualified to offer expert commentary on U.S. labor law.
Moreover, Kouri identifies himself as Fifth-Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. I've looked at the organization's website, and I can find no description of the duties of the Fifth-Vice President, nor an explanation of why the outfit needs (at least) five vice presidents. So where, exactly, does the Fifth-Vice President fit on the Table of Organization -- right after Miss Congeniality?
Further, the organization is a 501(c)(3) charity. That means it is absolutely prohibited from participating in partisan campaigns. This is a campaign year. Kouri is participating in partisan activity. Does the National Association of Chiefs of Police endorse his actions? If so, when is the IRS going to revoke its tax status?
The preceeding assessment of Kouri's fitness to comment on the NSA case is every bit as factual and unbiased as his assessment of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's job performance. Wonder how he likes the treatment?
Why, you might ask, do I spend so much time and energy picking at this pimple on the rump of the body politick? Because Glenn Greenwald asked me to. Well, not me specifically. He has challenged the media -- and by extension, its readers, viewers and listeners -- to push back against the pack of lies being promulgated by the Royalists to advance the cause of illegal spying on American citizens. A measure by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Cowardice) comes up for debate this week. It would retroactively pardon the Boy King and his minions for their crimes.
I'm just doing my part.
And they will continue to do so, no matter what the outcome of the next hearing. The consiglieri are merely going through the legal motions, knowing full well a higher court will eventually get its hands on the case. And when that happens, the fix is in. The matter will ultimately be determined by a Supreme Court packed with lackeys who have pledged allegiance to the racketeer influenced corrupt organization known as the Royalist White House.
In the meantime, the Royalists are running hither and yon blathering speciously and falsely about the case, the decision and, of course, the judge. Representative is a flatulent blast posted in something called "The Post Chronicle" by Jim Kouri, titled, "Liberal-Left Creates Confusion about NSA Surveillance Program." (Loathe as I am to link to such tripe, you can read it here if you feel you must.) Already in the title, Kouri is lying. The "liberal-left" (as opposed to, say, the conservative-left or the liberal-right, I guess) is not the source of confusion about the NSA's criminal activity. What opponents of our Imperial President have pointed out -- factually and accurately -- is that the NSA surveillance program is felonious, and everyone involved is violating the criminal statutes of the United States (including His Imperialness himself).
Kouri wastes no time following the White House script by obfuscating the legal issues and slandering the judge:
"The moment I read in her decision the term 'warrentless wiretaps' I knew Judge Taylor's decision was more political than constitutional. These were not wiretaps. They were intercepts of communications between suspected terrorists overseas and people residing in the United States."
Rarely has a more egregious aggregation of falsehoods ever appeared in a single paragraph written in the English language. Putting aside (for the moment) Kouri's vapid, boilerplate, and completely unsupported assertion that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was practicing politics instead of doing her Constitutional duty, he claims the NSA operation does not involve wiretaps.
Baloney.
Our Puppet King himself said so, when he confirmed the existence of the illegal program on December 17, 2005:
"I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations." (Official White House Transcript)
Of course, he was not taking actions "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution", as anyone who has read either could clearly see. But he left no doubt about what the NSA was up to. It was snooping on phone calls -- and emails and instant messages and other supposedly private communications. Kouri is simply talking through his hat when he says there were no wiretaps. The techniques were not limited to wiretaps, but you can rest assured, phones are being bugged.
And note what His Imperial Maliciousness said about who was targeted: "people with known links to al Qaeda". Not "suspected terrorists overseas", as Kouri falsely asserts. "Known links to al Qaeda" could mean virtually anything -- family members, fellow villagers, people in the same area code. And at no point does the Clown-in-Chief assert that it is the targets who are overseas. They could be (indeed, the lawsuit in question alleges, they are) American citizens in their own homes. Under the admitted surveillance program (and there are others that have been acknowleged but not revealed), only one party to the call need be overseas, and it need not be the "linked" person.
So Kouri, not the "liberal-left", is the one sowing "confusion about the NSA surveillance program". But he doesn't stop there. He then proceeds to conflate domestic eavesdropping -- which is permitted under the inherent police powers of the state when conducted within the limits of the law -- with broader powers conferred on the office of the president by statute and Constitution:
"The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
"The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11."
All of which may be true (though not nearly as sweepingly as Kouri asserts), but all of which is absolutely irrelevant to the NSA domestic spying scandal. Kouri is describing the president's powers as commander-in-chief of the military. But the NSA is not a military organization, even though it is often run by a military officer. It does not operate under military "rules of engagement". It operates under the U.S. Code, civil and criminal. So whatever military authority the president has, under the Constitution and federal statutes, it does not extend to the NSA's domestic operations. Moreover, electronic eavesdropping is not a military action. It is a police action. As such, it is permitted only under the constraints imposed, as Judge Taylor rightly points out, by the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Kouri concludes that Congress specifically granted the Bush Junta the power to eavesdrop on American citizens without court supervision in the Joint Resolution known as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force". That is, quite bluntly, an enormous lie. Here is the entire text (minus the "whereas's") of the resolution:
- (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
- (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
- (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
"Part of any military action is the gathering of intelligence including intelligence obtained through electronic intercepts."
So just what type of "military action" is the Bush Gang planning in, say, Miami? You know, where that "terrorist cell" busted with much fanfare turned out to be merely "aspirational"? None, of course. It's the FBI that busted them, not the 101st Airborne. The AUMF is completely silent on the domestic investigative tools available to law enforcement agencies and intelligence services. There is no way to stretch those words to make them reach the lawless snooping on U.S. citizens.
But Kouri would never be allowed into the right wing "Kool Kidz Klub" without tossing in a few snide remarks about the judge in the case. He makes no pretense of researching her judicial history. Instead, he blithely indicts her as a "Jimmy Carter appointee with a history of activism on the bench". His evidence? She once ruled a patently religious display could not be placed on property owned by taxpayers. (Proving, if nothing else, that the judge has read the First Amendment, and Kouri has not.) He then tosses out a slur at her ethics, with no substantiation. He offers nothing to support his bald assertion that she acts "politically" in ruling on the cases before her.
Before we leave the subject of character assassination, let's give Kouri a little bit of his own medicine. Now, I know nothing about Kouri except for what's in the biographical sketch on his own website (http://jimkouri.us/). That means I know at least as much about his politics, his ethics and his accomplishments as Kouri knows about Judge Taylor. Thus, I can treat him with the same uninformed disdain he treats Her Honor.
This is a man who lists as his leading accomplishment his tenure as the chief (presumably police chief) of a public housing project in New York, which was widely known as "Crack City". Now, honestly, if the place you were in charge of policing earned the reputation as a lawless drug den, would you brag about it? How good a cop does it take to allow the crack plague to fester among society's most vulnerable? If that qualifies him to provide "expert analysis" on the federal statutes regulating government eavesdropping on U.S. citizens, then Paris Hilton is qualified to offer expert commentary on U.S. labor law.
Moreover, Kouri identifies himself as Fifth-Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. I've looked at the organization's website, and I can find no description of the duties of the Fifth-Vice President, nor an explanation of why the outfit needs (at least) five vice presidents. So where, exactly, does the Fifth-Vice President fit on the Table of Organization -- right after Miss Congeniality?
Further, the organization is a 501(c)(3) charity. That means it is absolutely prohibited from participating in partisan campaigns. This is a campaign year. Kouri is participating in partisan activity. Does the National Association of Chiefs of Police endorse his actions? If so, when is the IRS going to revoke its tax status?
The preceeding assessment of Kouri's fitness to comment on the NSA case is every bit as factual and unbiased as his assessment of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's job performance. Wonder how he likes the treatment?
Why, you might ask, do I spend so much time and energy picking at this pimple on the rump of the body politick? Because Glenn Greenwald asked me to. Well, not me specifically. He has challenged the media -- and by extension, its readers, viewers and listeners -- to push back against the pack of lies being promulgated by the Royalists to advance the cause of illegal spying on American citizens. A measure by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Cowardice) comes up for debate this week. It would retroactively pardon the Boy King and his minions for their crimes.
I'm just doing my part.
posted by wally at 5:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home