You'd think Michael Chertoff would have something more important to do.
The hapless homeland security chief could snatch more money away from American locales most likely to be hit by Al Qaeda. Or let another wonderful city fall into a watery abyss. Or go on TV and help cable news hype the saga of the Miami gang of terrorist wannabes who look like they couldn't find the local Sears, let alone the Sears Tower.
These guys were so lame they asked an informant for boots, radios, binoculars, uniforms and cash, believing he was Al Qaeda — and that jihadists need uniforms.
Instead, the cadaverous Chertoff was gallivanting on stage yesterday morning with some fictional counterterrorism experts from "24."
The producers, writer and three actors from the Fox show appeared at an event sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center.
Drawing on his old scripts, Mr. Reagan was a master at mixing fiction and fact, but he was a piker compared with the Bush crowd.
The audience included Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginny, who held a dinner at the Supreme Court Thursday for the Tinseltown terror brigade.
Rush Limbaugh, who said that Dick Cheney and Rummy were huge fans of "24," was master of ceremonies for the panel, titled, " '24' and America's Image in Fighting Terrorism: Fact, Fiction or Does It Matter?"
It doesn't in this administration.
Better to have a panel in praise of Jack Bauer than admit we have no real Jack Bauers to find Osama and his murderous acolytes.
Better to pretend that rounding up a bunch of Florida losers whose plan was more "aspirational than operational," as one F.B.I. official put it, is a great blow in the war on terror than to really turn our intelligence agencies and Homeland Security into the relentless, resourceful and fearsome organizations they are in fiction — and should be, given the billions spent on them.
Lulled by our spy thrillers and Tom Clancy novels, we used to take for granted that our intelligence agencies were just as capable as heroes on the screen.
Jack Ryan, either the Harrison Ford, the Alec Baldwin or even the Ben Affleck version, could have gotten Osama single-handedly in the two hours allotted.
Even though they still haven't captured the fiend behind 9/11, W. and Dick Cheney still blend fact and fiction by using 9/11 to justify their wrongheaded venture in Iraq.
As the vice president told CNN's John King this week, when he was asked about his claim that "we would be greeted as liberators" in Iraq:
"It does not make any sense for people to think that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans, leave the Middle East, walk away from Iraq, and we'll be safe and secure here at home. 9/11 put the lie to that."
In a macabre metric of improvement, Dr. Death also noted that things were looking up. "There are a lot more Iraqis becoming casualties in this conflict at present because they are now in the fight," he said cheerily.
Some of W.'s closest allies have begun privately calling Vice "an absolute disaster," but when will W. realize how twisted his logic is?
In the new book "The One Percent Doctrine," Ron Suskind writes that C.I.A. officials referred to Mr. Cheney as "Edgar," as in Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy, and that W. had to ask his domineering second to pull back a little at meetings and not offer him advice in crowded rooms so they could continue to pretend that Mr. Cheney was not the puppet-master.
On the homeland security set, Mr. Chertoff, flanked by the actors who play the beautiful technogeek Chloe and President Logan, seemed a little fuzzy about whether the fancy technology on "24" exists.
He noted, "One thing you don't see on '24' is when the computer's crashing and having to get the I.T. people to come in to reboot and get the computer working again."
Given that the F.B.I. is struggling to get a computer system that can simultaneously search for "flight" and "schools," his answer was not all that funny.
Asked about the slashing of anti-terrorism money given to New York, he replied that "we've put a lot of extra money into northern New Jersey." (Wow, I feel better already.)
Mr. Limbaugh slyly suggested the producers give Jack Murtha a cameo as K.G.B. chief. He praised "24" for giving torture a good name.
This past season, the show began exploring what happens when a Nixonian president becomes so obsessed with national security that he starts undermining the country's laws.
That's the kind of fiction you hate to see become fact.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Friday, June 23, 2006
Following the Money, and the Rules
NYT Editorial
After the attacks on 9/11, when the terrorist threat seemed equally dangerous and amorphous, one of the few clear strategies for counterattack was to follow the money. Almost everyone, including this page, urged the Bush administration to be aggressive in shutting down the flow of cash to terrorist organizations, and to root out the people who were supplying it.
The administration went to work, and one very useful source of information turned out to be a banking cooperative known as Swift — Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. It routes about $6 trillion a day among 7,800 financial institutions worldwide. An article by Eric Lichtblau and James Risen in yesterday's Times — and similar stories in The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times — detailed how investigators have made use of Swift data to track potential terrorist financing. Government officials say the information has helped capture one important Al Qaeda operative abroad, and that it has assisted domestic investigations as well.
That sounds like good news. What's worrisome is a familiar refrain. Despite a compliant Congress, which was eager to give the administration all the investigative tools it requested, the White House has chosen to operate outside any real scrutiny, and not to seek explicit authorization for what has clearly become a permanent program.
In the heightened state of emergency after 9/11, the government began examining the Swift records with the help of general administrative subpoenas, which are basically permission from one part of the executive branch to another. Now it is nearly five years later, and nothing has changed. Investigators have examined the international money transfers of thousands of Americans, apparently without ever trying to get a court order or warrant to do the searches. And Congress, as usual, has never exercised any oversight.
A few members were briefed on the program, and a few more told about it once it became clear that newspapers were preparing an article. But the briefings tend to become a trap in which those who are informed about what is going on are required under security rules not to talk about what they know even after it becomes public. Armed with some knowledge, they become more impotent than when they were completely in the dark.
One danger of a never-ending government investigation into people's financial transactions is mission creep. A Treasury Department spokesman told The Times that the information mined from Swift — which includes millions of records — cannot be used for anything except terrorism searches. But there is little to guarantee that will continue to be the case.
Congress, which has given the administration many new powers to conduct terrorism investigations, needs to judge whether this was what it had in mind. The original Patriot Act made major changes in money-laundering laws that provided for the use of administrative subpoenas. But the Judiciary chairman, Arlen Specter, was quoted yesterday as questioning whether their use in the Swift investigation has been too broad. The committee has already scheduled an oversight hearing this month, at which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is slated to appear. The senators should take the opportunity to look deeper.
So far, the only check on the executive branch appears to have come from the Swift executives themselves, who grew increasingly concerned when what they envisioned to be a short-term program seemed on its way to becoming permanent. It was at their insistence that the controls the government now cites were put into place. An outside auditing firm is now used to verify that investigators have real intelligence leads behind their requests for information. That is all to the good; it is clear that when it comes to defending their customers, international banking executives are far more aggressive than, say, American telephone company executives.
When government agencies are involved in continuing investigations that might infringe on Americans' privacy, it is important that some outside entity is keeping track of what is going on. That principle is particularly true now, when the United States is trying to learn how to live in a perpetual war on terror.
Investigators will probably need to monitor the flow of money to and from suspected terrorists and listen in on their phone conversations for decades to come. No one wants that to stop, but if America is going to continue to be America, these efforts need to be done under a clear and coherent set of rules, with the oversight of Congress and the courts.
After the attacks on 9/11, when the terrorist threat seemed equally dangerous and amorphous, one of the few clear strategies for counterattack was to follow the money. Almost everyone, including this page, urged the Bush administration to be aggressive in shutting down the flow of cash to terrorist organizations, and to root out the people who were supplying it.
The administration went to work, and one very useful source of information turned out to be a banking cooperative known as Swift — Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. It routes about $6 trillion a day among 7,800 financial institutions worldwide. An article by Eric Lichtblau and James Risen in yesterday's Times — and similar stories in The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times — detailed how investigators have made use of Swift data to track potential terrorist financing. Government officials say the information has helped capture one important Al Qaeda operative abroad, and that it has assisted domestic investigations as well.
That sounds like good news. What's worrisome is a familiar refrain. Despite a compliant Congress, which was eager to give the administration all the investigative tools it requested, the White House has chosen to operate outside any real scrutiny, and not to seek explicit authorization for what has clearly become a permanent program.
In the heightened state of emergency after 9/11, the government began examining the Swift records with the help of general administrative subpoenas, which are basically permission from one part of the executive branch to another. Now it is nearly five years later, and nothing has changed. Investigators have examined the international money transfers of thousands of Americans, apparently without ever trying to get a court order or warrant to do the searches. And Congress, as usual, has never exercised any oversight.
A few members were briefed on the program, and a few more told about it once it became clear that newspapers were preparing an article. But the briefings tend to become a trap in which those who are informed about what is going on are required under security rules not to talk about what they know even after it becomes public. Armed with some knowledge, they become more impotent than when they were completely in the dark.
One danger of a never-ending government investigation into people's financial transactions is mission creep. A Treasury Department spokesman told The Times that the information mined from Swift — which includes millions of records — cannot be used for anything except terrorism searches. But there is little to guarantee that will continue to be the case.
Congress, which has given the administration many new powers to conduct terrorism investigations, needs to judge whether this was what it had in mind. The original Patriot Act made major changes in money-laundering laws that provided for the use of administrative subpoenas. But the Judiciary chairman, Arlen Specter, was quoted yesterday as questioning whether their use in the Swift investigation has been too broad. The committee has already scheduled an oversight hearing this month, at which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is slated to appear. The senators should take the opportunity to look deeper.
So far, the only check on the executive branch appears to have come from the Swift executives themselves, who grew increasingly concerned when what they envisioned to be a short-term program seemed on its way to becoming permanent. It was at their insistence that the controls the government now cites were put into place. An outside auditing firm is now used to verify that investigators have real intelligence leads behind their requests for information. That is all to the good; it is clear that when it comes to defending their customers, international banking executives are far more aggressive than, say, American telephone company executives.
When government agencies are involved in continuing investigations that might infringe on Americans' privacy, it is important that some outside entity is keeping track of what is going on. That principle is particularly true now, when the United States is trying to learn how to live in a perpetual war on terror.
Investigators will probably need to monitor the flow of money to and from suspected terrorists and listen in on their phone conversations for decades to come. No one wants that to stop, but if America is going to continue to be America, these efforts need to be done under a clear and coherent set of rules, with the oversight of Congress and the courts.
O'Donnell skipped opportunity to challenge McCain over false claim that he doesn't use the words "cut and run"
MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell accepted as true Sen. John McCain's false assertion that he "refuse[s] to use" the words "cut and run" to describe plans to redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq. In fact, McCain has repeatedly used those words to describe such plans, and to attack Democrats who support them. Read more
CNN and other outlets ignored Hagel's denunciation of GOP "focus group-tested buzz words like 'cut and run' "
While CNN continued to hype the divisions among Democrats on the issue of U.S. redeployment from Iraq, stemming from the debate over two Senate proposals on the issue, the network entirely ignored a recent display of dissention within the Republican Party, as did Fox News and MSNBC. Read more
White House Demands Spy Lawsuit Dismissal
San Francisco, Calif. (KCBS) -- A federal judge in San Francisco is hearing oral arguments on the U.S. government's motion to dismiss the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class-action lawsuit against AT&T.
KCBS' Bob Melrose is at the courthouse. He explained the lawsuit, filed on behalf of several AT&T customers, challenges the Bush Administration's electronic, domestic spying program and could test the reach of the president's office.
The Administration argues that the courts can not decide the constitutionality of the president's asserted wartime powers to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants.
The San Francisco-based EFF filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T in January of 2006, accusing the telecommunications giant of illegally cooperating with the National Security Agency to make communications on the company's networks available to the agency without warrants.
The government contends that even if the NSA program is illegal, the lawsuit should not go forward because it might expose state secrets in the war on terror.
KCBS' Bob Melrose is at the courthouse. He explained the lawsuit, filed on behalf of several AT&T customers, challenges the Bush Administration's electronic, domestic spying program and could test the reach of the president's office.
The Administration argues that the courts can not decide the constitutionality of the president's asserted wartime powers to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants.
The San Francisco-based EFF filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T in January of 2006, accusing the telecommunications giant of illegally cooperating with the National Security Agency to make communications on the company's networks available to the agency without warrants.
The government contends that even if the NSA program is illegal, the lawsuit should not go forward because it might expose state secrets in the war on terror.
Legislation Added to Defense Bill Would Restore Free Speech Rights Canceled by Supreme Court for Federal Government Workers on the Job
WASHINGTON - June 23 - The Senate yesterday acted quickly to plug a government accountability loophole created less than one month ago, when the Supreme Court’s Garcetti v. Ceballos decision canceled constitutional free speech rights for government workers carrying out their job duties. Senate bill S. 494, which includes that reform amidst a general overhaul of the Whistleblower Protection Act, was agreed to by unanimous consent as an amendment to the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, passed 96-0 last evening. For the last three Congresses, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) approved similar legislation, but until yesterday Senate leaders had refused to permit a floor vote.
The House version of the defense bill does not address whistleblower rights, although the House Government Reform Committee has passed an even broader-ranging version of the Senate reform, with two bills (HR 1317 and HR 5112) that together provide jury trials for whistleblowers and extend protection to national security employees and government contractors. The fate of S. 494 will be determined by a conference not expected until late in the session. But the Senate action makes it a foregone conclusion that federal whistleblower law will be strengthened. The remaining questions are – How much stronger will it become, and will rights be extended to all government workers and contractors who defend taxpayers?
The Senate vote is a milestone in a six year campaign by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and a good government coalition that has swelled to 30 citizen organizations, spanning the ideological spectrum from taxpayer watchdogs and national security professionals, to civil liberties coalitions and federal labor unions.
GAP Legal Director Tom Devine commented, “We’re elated – it is long overdue for Congress to protect federal workers and declare war on government misconduct. The Senate acted quickly and responsibly to close the accountability gap created by the Supreme Court. This unanimous Senate mandate for whistleblowers proves there is a political imperative among voters, and a viable base in Congress to restore open government. Now the question is whether House leaders get the message.”
The House version of the defense bill does not address whistleblower rights, although the House Government Reform Committee has passed an even broader-ranging version of the Senate reform, with two bills (HR 1317 and HR 5112) that together provide jury trials for whistleblowers and extend protection to national security employees and government contractors. The fate of S. 494 will be determined by a conference not expected until late in the session. But the Senate action makes it a foregone conclusion that federal whistleblower law will be strengthened. The remaining questions are – How much stronger will it become, and will rights be extended to all government workers and contractors who defend taxpayers?
The Senate vote is a milestone in a six year campaign by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and a good government coalition that has swelled to 30 citizen organizations, spanning the ideological spectrum from taxpayer watchdogs and national security professionals, to civil liberties coalitions and federal labor unions.
GAP Legal Director Tom Devine commented, “We’re elated – it is long overdue for Congress to protect federal workers and declare war on government misconduct. The Senate acted quickly and responsibly to close the accountability gap created by the Supreme Court. This unanimous Senate mandate for whistleblowers proves there is a political imperative among voters, and a viable base in Congress to restore open government. Now the question is whether House leaders get the message.”
Springsteen Mocks Ann Coulter, TV Pundits
NEW YORK -- Appearing on CNN today to promote his current tour and album of Pete Seeger songs, rocker Bruce Springsteen took note of the current controversy surrounding Ann Coulter in responding to a question about whether musicians should speak out on politics.
Springsteen was asked if getting flack about his political views, such as backing John Kerry in 2004, made him wonder if musicians should try so hard to be taken seriously on topical issues.
"They should let Ann Coulter do it instead?" he mused, with a chuckle. Then he said, "You can turn on the idiots rambling on cable television every night, and they say musicians shouldn’t speak up? It’s insane, it’s funny," he said, laughing.
He called politics "an organic part of what I’m doing. ... It’s called common sense. I don’t even see it as politics at this point.''
As for the Iraq war, he commented, "You don’t take your country into a major war on circumstantial evidence -- you lose your job for that. That’s my opinion and I don’t have a problem voicing that. Some people have a problem with that, others don’t."...
Springsteen was asked if getting flack about his political views, such as backing John Kerry in 2004, made him wonder if musicians should try so hard to be taken seriously on topical issues.
"They should let Ann Coulter do it instead?" he mused, with a chuckle. Then he said, "You can turn on the idiots rambling on cable television every night, and they say musicians shouldn’t speak up? It’s insane, it’s funny," he said, laughing.
He called politics "an organic part of what I’m doing. ... It’s called common sense. I don’t even see it as politics at this point.''
As for the Iraq war, he commented, "You don’t take your country into a major war on circumstantial evidence -- you lose your job for that. That’s my opinion and I don’t have a problem voicing that. Some people have a problem with that, others don’t."...
Report: Abramoff used Norquist to distribute funds, Anti-tax advocate acted as a buffer for lobbyist's activities
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In Jack Abramoff's world, prominent Washington tax-cut advocate Grover Norquist was a godsend.
Moving money from a casino-operating Indian tribe to Ralph Reed, the Christian Coalition founder and professed gambling opponent, was a problem. Lobbyist Abramoff turned to his longtime friend Norquist, apparently to provide a buffer for Reed.
The result, according to evidence gathered by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, was that Norquist's Americans for Tax Relief became a conduit for more than a million dollars from the Mississippi Choctaw to Reed's operation, while Norquist, a close White House ally, took a cut.
Without citing any specific group, the Senate panel found numerous instances of nonprofit organizations that appeared to be involved in activities unrelated to their mission as described to the Internal Revenue Service.
Thursday's 373-page Senate report on Abramoff's influence-peddling said some nonprofits channeled money from one entity to another in an effort to obscure the source of funds, the eventual use of funds and to evade tax liability....
Moving money from a casino-operating Indian tribe to Ralph Reed, the Christian Coalition founder and professed gambling opponent, was a problem. Lobbyist Abramoff turned to his longtime friend Norquist, apparently to provide a buffer for Reed.
The result, according to evidence gathered by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, was that Norquist's Americans for Tax Relief became a conduit for more than a million dollars from the Mississippi Choctaw to Reed's operation, while Norquist, a close White House ally, took a cut.
Without citing any specific group, the Senate panel found numerous instances of nonprofit organizations that appeared to be involved in activities unrelated to their mission as described to the Internal Revenue Service.
Thursday's 373-page Senate report on Abramoff's influence-peddling said some nonprofits channeled money from one entity to another in an effort to obscure the source of funds, the eventual use of funds and to evade tax liability....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)