The Betrayal of Valerie Wilson
Valerie Plame was a covert intelligence officer covered by the Intelligence Officer's Identity Protection Act and Lewis "Scooter" Libby lied to the Grand Jury. These two truths emerge from the opinion written by Judge Tatel, of the US Court of Appeals, and released in February 2005. Thanks to a FOIA request by the Wall Street Journal we now have a more complete record, although key parts of his decision are still blacked out. Perhaps most of the media will now realize that they have been fed a pack of lies by the likes of Ken Mehlman, Victoria Toensing, Cliff May and others.
Tatel's opinion also is relevant to the current furor over "domestic spying" and whether reporters will have any ability to protect their sources. It certainly appears that Tatel would uphold the right of the reporters to protect sources who told them about illegal spying. Tatel's concludes his opinion that Judy Miller and Matt Cooper had to testify before the Grand Jury with the following:
In sum, based on an exhaustive investigation, the special counsel has established the need for Miller’s and Cooper’s testimony. Thus, considering the gravity of the suspected crime and the low value of the leaked information, no privilege bars the subpoenas. . . .Here, two reporters and a news magazine, informants to the public, seek to keep a grand jury uninformed. Representing two equally fundamental principles—rule of law and free speech—the special counsel and the reporters both aim to facilitate fully informed and accurate decision-making by those they serve: the grand jury and the electorate. To this court falls the task of balancing the two sides’ concerns. . . .
. . . .Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need for the reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellants’ sources instead appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court’s orders compelling their testimony.
Tatel's incisive opinion makes he clear that he understands the difference between someone who leaks information designed to hurt U.S. intelligence assets, as happened in Valerie's case, and someone who leaks information about Government malfeasance, as happened with the leak to James Risen that the Bush Administration was spying on Americans. The key issue for Tatel was "harm" to the United States versus the public's right to know.
Speaking to the harm caused by the leak, Judge Tatel wrote:
As to the leaks’ harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame’s work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as “a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years”—representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. (8/27/04 Aff. at 28 n.15.)
Some of the Bush apologists, such as Byron York of the National Review, are still insisting that Plame's covert status is in doubt and that no damage was done by seizing on a paragraph in a recent letter from Patrick Fitzgerald to Scooter Libby's attorneys. In a December 14, 2005, letter to Fitzgerald, Libby's lawyers asked for "Any assessment done of the damage (if any) caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee" in a December 14, 2005 letter to Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald's response stated, "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document."
This much I do know. The CIA, as matter of standard operating procedure, conducted a prelimnary damage assessment once Valerie's identity was publicly compromised. Human intelligence assets who had worked under Valerie's direction were damaged. Their lives were put at risk (I don't know if anyone died) and their ability to serve as clandestine assets reporting to the United States was destroyed. Remember, Valerie was working on projects to identify terrorists and criminals who were trying to procure weapons of mass destruction. Part of this information was the basis for the referral to the Justice Department in September 2003 to investigate this as a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Although the CIA has not completed a formal written report that is available to outsiders, such as the House or Senate Intelligence Committees, it has done a damage assessment.
Other material contained in Tatel's review of the case contains the following substantive nuggets:
Vice President Cheney told Scooter Libby that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA's Counter Proliferation Division in mid-June 2003.
Both Cheney and Libby, by virtue of their longstanding work with CIA and on national security issues, knew that CPD was an intelligence collector and not an analytical shop. They also have had enough experience with intelligence matters to know that the vast majority of folks involved with intelligence collection are undercover.
Finally, Tatel made it clear why Miller and Cooper needed to testify and correctly predicted that Libby's conduct justified a perjury indictment:
Given the evidence contradicting Libby’s testimony, the special counsel appears already to have at least circumstantial grounds for a perjury charge, if nothing else. Miller’s testimony, however, could settle the matter. If Libby mentioned Plame during the July 8 meeting—and Miller’s responses to the documentary subpoena suggest she has notes from that conversation (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 19-20)—then Libby’s version of events would be demonstrably false, since the conversation occurred before he spoke to Russert. Even if he first mentioned Plame on July 12, as he claims, inconsistencies between his recollection and Miller’s could reinforce suspicions of perjury. What’s more, if Libby mentioned Plame’s covert status in either conversation, charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 50 U.S.C. § 421, currently off the table for lack of evidence (see 8/27/04 Aff. at 28 & n.15), might become viable. Thus, because Miller may provide key corroboration or contradiction of Libby’s claims—evidence obviously available from no other source—the special counsel has made a compelling showing that the subpoenas directed at Miller are vital to an accurate assessment of Libby’s conduct.
Fitzgerald's ability to prosecute under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act hinges on the cooperation of Libby, Rove, and Cheney, among others. Libby's refusal to cooperate explains the perjury and obstruction of justice charges he faces. We will see what happens with Rove and the Vice President. Regardless of whether Fitzgerald can prosecute an Intelligence Identities Protection case, this much is clear--people who work for President Bush knowingly compromised an intelligence officer's identity. What is truly shameful are the prominent Republicans who are raising funds for Libby's defense fund. They are endorsing an act of treason and excusing it for political expediency. That may not be a crime, but it is wrong.
Advertisement
Comments (135)
Since you call her Valerie instead of Ms. Wilson or Plame, I assume you are friendly with her. Has this given you any special insights which you can desribe?
How do you know domestic wire-tapping was malfeasance? The Administration claims that certain classes of calls to known terrorists or organizations are legitimately questionable. Sounds reasonable to me. They also claim precedents in that previous Presidents acted in similar ways. Also reasonable.
February 6, 2006 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I caught Tony Snow making the ridiculous argument that those who wanted Judy Miller to testify should be pushing journalists to testify in the NSA leak case. Its argument was that the Wilson leak was unimportant given that she was working at Langley while the leak of the spying program was a blow to national security.
What worries me is that those who get their news only from FOX will believe this nonsense. Further, that with few people answer this it will become the accepted version among the public.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 6, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry-
You believe this was a big deal. I believe this was a big deal. Apparently Sen. Grassley does not.
This morning in the Spector hearings, he told little Al that he thought the Risen leak was much more damaging to the country, and wanted to know when an active investigation into these leakers was going to begin.
Sounds like the legal defense funds better get crankin'.
Alphonse (Al) Kada
February 6, 2006 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This much I do know. The CIA, as matter of standard operating procedure, conducted a prelimnary damage assessment once Valerie's identity was publicly compromised. Human intelligence assets who had worked under Valerie's direction were damaged. Their lives were put at risk (I don't know if anyone died) and their ability to serve as clandestine assets reporting to the United States was destroyed.
How do you know this? Not the fact that a preliminary assessment was done but what its results were. Please don't cite "anonymous sources" because others have cited "anonymous sources" that say just the opposite.
February 6, 2006 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
selfinterest: we have a law that was written at the express invitation of the Supreme Court to cover the issue of electronic surveillance of American citizens for "foreign intelligence purposes." That law requires a certain procedure to obtain permission to utilize electronic surveillance ("the FISA court").
The administration position is that the AUMF and the constitution override FISA. This is nonsensical. "Probable cause" has meaning, and the Bush approach has been to override "probable cause." Hence, malfeasance.
The so-called precedents are phony, generally dealing with pre-FISA or non-FISA-covered situations.
February 6, 2006 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If sources and assets beyond Valerie were not compromised, there would not have been a referral to Department of Justice. I was saying two and a half years ago that Val was undercover. That was disputed by the Bush apologists at the time. We now see who was right. I don't write this stuff just because it makes me feel good. The reality on the damage side is that the public will never learn the full scope (just as we only know a bit of the harm caused by Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanson).
February 6, 2006 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find the most unfortunate aspect of this obvious treasonous act by the Bush administration is the equally obvious foot dragging by the courts and the Congress going on now. The objective is to keep this out of court until 2009. At that time the new president, regardless of his/her party, will pardon all involved. To me, this represents a total breakdown in our form of government, engineered by the courts. We may require considerable luck to even be able to hold an election in 2008. The only thing that will save us is if there are a few honest, patriotic Republicans in Congress - not a good prospect.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 6, 2006 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a nutshell, whistleblower protection is granted when the ends justify the means.If the leak serves a public purpose, such as exposing malfesence and/or furthering democratic debate then it's protected. The journalists themselves, courts, and public opinion determine whether a public good was served and whether a crime has been commited.
In the Plame case the leak was not protected as it was a deliberate "dirty trick" for politcal goals that sought to slander and silence a whistle blower: Joe Wilson. In doing so it endangered Plame and did harm to national security directly through her career, and also indirectly through the message it sends to other intel agents.
Tatel got it exactly correct.
By comparison the leak regarding the wire tapping serves to inform the public, and Congress, of actions taken by the executive branch which they must oversee. At the very least the legality of those wire taps is extremly questionable and shows the Admin was operating on the edge, and quite possibly well beyond. The admin can't claim foul due to harm done to a borderline or illegal operation.
Hence the public good was served by the wiretap leaks. The executive should have done more to assure the legality of their operation, which would have clarified the issue for Congress, the public (ultimately) and even the leaker.
But to get to brass tacks, we all know the Admin was running T.I.A. covertly without the permission of Congress or the public. In fact, T.I.A. had been explicitly prohibited by Congress and the public because of it’s “Big Brother” domestic spying qualities and the limits/flaws in the technology of data mining.
February 6, 2006 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your objection is strictly legal. That has to be settled in court. Until such time as that happens and the Administration is found guilty it is presumed innocent. Surprising (not really) that you've let partisanship blind you to something so basic.
Meanwhile there's the much more important question of the value of that surveillance to the nation's security.
February 6, 2006 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In a nutshell, whistleblower protection is granted when the ends justify the means"
What applies to whistleblowers certainly applies to national security. So if the Administration can show that domestic surveillance was of tremendous value in protecting national security and that revealing it even to a FISA court compromised its value then surely it acted correctly...and the whistleblowers were wrong.
I'm sure you agree since this follows from your reasoning.
February 6, 2006 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile there's the much more important question of the value of that surveillance to the nation's security.
Have at it, selfinterest. What I'm reading is that the domestic surveillance program produced nothing. Maybe you have some insight to the contrary.
February 6, 2006 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's reasonable to say that your repetitions of widely debunked talking points pertaining to the illegal wiretapping program constitute 'trolling'.
February 6, 2006 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, if it could be shown that the program was compromised, although that damage might be discounted if the program was illegal.
It won't be shown to have suffered damage, since the new information from the story was NOT surveillance, but the lack of warrants. See my post on this.
No one was surrprised to hear NSA does surveillance, especially the bad guys, who have good reasons to pay close attention. Certainly the bad guys pay more attention than ordinary Americans.
I was very pleased to hear Arlen Specter "educate" the AG on the plain language of the FISA statute today. He was pretty strenuous that any reasonable person would read FISA as positively prohibiting warrantless domestic surveillance. He found the Jackson "test" (Youngstown) no help to the administration, but rather the opposite conclusion, that the clear language left no room for finding unregulated presidential power.
February 6, 2006 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
people who get their only news from Fox are lost souls who inhabit an alternate reality. There is no use worrying about what they do.
February 6, 2006 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If sources and assets beyond Valerie were not compromised, there would not have been a referral to Department of Justice
Is this an agency policy or guideline? The IIPA doesn't say anthing about effect past the covered agent.
Also are you saying no one in the CIA has told you the results of the "informal" damage assessment?
February 6, 2006 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think selfinterest is a troll.
It was pretty obvious there are two bars that have to be overcome, and that the Bush admin can't claim damage done to an illegal program.
Selfinterest just seems intent on wasting people's time.
February 6, 2006 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
actually, selfinterest, what has to be settled in court is whether the administration justification for breaking the law is acceptable, not whether they broke it.
this has nothing to do with "partisanship." They produced a 42-page paper justifying what they are doing by AUMF and inherent powers of the commander-in-chief. They didn't produce a 42-page paper explaining that they were following FISA because even the bush administration couldn't produce support for a claim that absurd. you can spend a few minutes educating yourself on the difference here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf
Actually, if the surveillance was of value to the nation's security, it would meet the test of probable cause; alternatively, the administration could have gone to Congress and asked for changes in FISA.
Lawless behavior is a much bigger threat to the nation's security than AQ, which, although it remains a dangerous organization, likely to strike the US again, is not a threat to our existence as a nation.
Need i quote the founders to you about scaredy-cats who don't think there liberty is important enough and what happens to same?
February 6, 2006 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as “a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years”—representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support.
If this was all so clear to Fitzgerald and therefore Judge Tatel in late 04 or early 05, I still don't understand why Fitz refused to bring an IIPA charge on Libby. Also, Fitz refused to characterize Plame's status re: the Act in the indictment and refused to answer a direct question to this effect in the press conference. What's the big deal preventing him from saying it?
February 6, 2006 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then they have a lot to answer for. But they've said they've intercepted communication between Muslims in the US and AlQaida. Surely, that's of legitimate interest to our government.
February 6, 2006 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If your interpretation of the law was definitive we wouldn't need courts, would we?...and we could dispense with the desperate fury which meets Supreme Court nominees.
"Lawless behavior is a much bigger threat to the nation's security than AQ"
Yes, indeedy. Those 3000 people and billions of dollars lost in New York and the many more lives and treasure elsewhere are nothing compared to Bush's "violation" of the wiretapping law. Boy, I don't know what you use your head for...but it isn't thinking.
"Need i quote the founders to you"
You don't need to quote anything to me. You need to get an education. The Alien and Sedition laws were passed by some of the Founders and disputed by others. This conflict is an old one...unsettled because both sides represent legitimate interests
February 6, 2006 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Widely debunked doesn't mean proven wrong. All the great propagandists have said something repeated often enough becomes synonymous with truth. While that's usually taken to mean the great unwashed can be fooled, I've found that partisans require much less effort. Say something once which confirms their prejudices and they'll do all the work for you.
February 6, 2006 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you really this obtuse? Should I put it in CAPS? Will that help you? BECAUSE LIBBY IS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND LYING. THAT IS PREVENTING FITZGERALD FROM COMPLETING THE INVESTIGATION. Fitzgerald made it very clear at his press conference that she was undercover.
February 6, 2006 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's an acknowledged tension between law and war...and it's reflected in the basic structure of our government. No reasonable person expects peacetime conditions to prevail when the nation is under attack.
That tension has not, and cannot be, worked out in theory. It must play itself out as the nation responds to challanges. There are often excesses and failures. I don't see how it can be otherwise.
Much will depend on how the citizens perceive the threat and how they value the intelligence gained. All the rest is partisan show.
February 6, 2006 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush can claim damage to a program - legal or illegal - if national security is compromised. The Bush administration claims both; that the program is legal, and that it has been damaged.
The Bush Administration is the government.
If you find it a waste of time disputing with someone who agrees with the government - in some or many instances - then how reasonable is it for you to participate in political discussion of any kind?
February 6, 2006 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, El Capisino does that all the time. It's deliberate. I hope TPMC is tracking IP to see if ElCamper and some other regular trolls are posting from the same IP block. I do notice the chronic trolls like ElCamper, PFCWallabe, and some others stick togeather to keep each other on the board. Wouldn't suprise me if we have more troll logins than actual people behind them. That's the usual Freeper MO.
February 6, 2006 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
selfinterest, it's not "my" interpretation of the law. It's the Bush Adminstration concession that they are violating FISA. What's in question is whether they have a legitimate basis to violate FISA, not whether they are. Read the Gonzalez 42-pager. read the congressional research service report that i highlighted for you. For that matter, read FISA - or ask the judge who resigned in disgust.
and yes, lawless behavior by the executive branch (i should have been clearer there, but you seem to have gotten the point) is a bigger threat to america than AQ. America will survive long after AQ is but a bitter memory - if it adheres to its principles. Turn the president into a commander-in-chief who can violate the law with impunity and there is no point to America. We're just another country once we stop treating our constitution as a sacred document, not one that gets ignored because a shallow little man occupies the white house.
As for the Alien and Sedition laws, surely you jest? What the hell do they have to do with whether it's acceptable for president bush to violate FISA? and you accuse others of not "thinking."
February 6, 2006 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
for instance, selfinterest, let george bush and dick cheney and albert gonzalez repeat often enough that the commander-in-chief can violate the law because AUMF allows him to, and you'l believe it....
excellent point.
February 6, 2006 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 6, 2006 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, mr. big brain, here's the definition of debunk, just to help you out while you're thinking such big thoughts about the alien and sedition act:
Main Entry: de·bunk
Pronunciation: (")dE-'b&[ng]k
Function: transitive verb
: to expose the sham or falseness of <debunk a legend>
- de·bunk·er noun
http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/debunk
i supposed what you meant was that just because people think they have debunked something doesn't mean they have, but of course, i don't use my head for thinking like you, so there may be a much more sophisticated meaning you had in mind.
like how violating FISA is really obeying the law of the land.
February 6, 2006 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
NickDoe, i know selfinterest is an ass, and probably a troll, too, but until he literally foams at the mouth, i like to practice up on the arguments!
February 6, 2006 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 6, 2006 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So we can have the Bush-packed courts destroy our checks and balances system that is the bulwark of our democratic republic. Let's have the coronation of King George the W. I'm sure Madison and Jefferson would be appalled (although Hamilton might like it - he wanted a President to be elected for life). And let's all be really psyched it about the way "selfinterest" is. Of course, this is working against the long-range self-interest of all Americans. A bit ironic I would say.
Tom
February 6, 2006 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the Federalists were voted out of power for all time in 1800, the Democratic-Republicans let the Alien and Sedition Acts lapse. Let's hope the Republicans get voted out of office for all time. By the way, if you're defending the Alien and Sedition Acts, I would question who needs to get an education.
Tom
February 6, 2006 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
He probably hangs around with SFC Wallace in his spare time.
Tom
February 6, 2006 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
suit yourself. :) I think it's just a waste of time though. He's not even good sparring, it's like arguing with a half-assed Turing machine. "does not compute, does not compute"
February 6, 2006 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan Knaus
The "precedents" that you refer to were exactly what the FISA law was passed to address. Presidents prior to Nixon did wire-tapping, as did J Edgar Hoover. Some for "reasonable" reasons, and some...not so much. Nixon used wire taps to spy on those who were not with him, and therefore were against him. (Sound familiar?) It was an abuse of power, and was the specific reason that FISA was passed.
It was NOT passed to prevent the President from wire-tapping. It was NOT passed to limit our ability to monitor our enemies. It WAS passed so that oversite by a distinguished court (The FISA Court) would assure there would be no abuse of power. Experience has borne that out. Only 3 of several thousand requests were ever denied.
Just a note about Porter Goss' statement that the damage about this issue was horrific, and did enormous damage to our intelligence. Where is his outrage about the outing of his very own agent whose job it was to contain WMD's in the first place? To my knowledge he has not offerred up one bit of concern over her fake company being blown, her contacts in myriad countries being at risk; nothing.
Since it was the CIA (not under Goss, thank goodness) that sent this case to DOJ in the first place, it should put to rest all the statements that Plame was not a protected agent. If the CIA thinks she was, then I guess that should be enough for even the cynics. (Too bad it's not enough for those who just don't want to know the truth).
The bottom line is that the administration could have requested changes in FISA to make its very generous requirements reflect new technology. They didn't do it because they didn't want to. They want unbridled power, and if a Democratic president were doing the same thing, I do not believe they would have the same opinion about this issue.
If any damage was done, it is because they flauted the law and drew attention to their actions. That is why everyone knows about it. Who knows about all the thousands of wire-taps FISA approved? Hint: No one, because they were legal, and the integrity of the court proves that they were leakless, unlike the White House itself.
February 6, 2006 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Selfinterested - your name is ironic. When you say:
"In a nutshell, whistleblower protection is granted when the ends justify the means. What applies to whistleblowers certainly applies to national security"
I agree. And the "end" that the whistleblowing "means" justifies is the knowledge that the president is thumbing his nose at our Constitution and our laws in order to gain more and more power. It is in every citizen's self interest to keep our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
No one wants to keep our government from spying on spies. We just want them to do it legally. What is wrong with that?
Jan Knaus
February 6, 2006 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
WASP Republican female here (I like to get that out of the way since I'm often the only Republican around).
Here are my concerns about all this:
1. Ms Plame's outing as a warning to all others who would publically disagree with the current administration: as in, this is what we can do to you, your family and damn the consequences (in this case the hunt for real WMD and people associated with Ms. Plame)
2. Perpetual war. Go read Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here. Perpetual war serves many parties in many ways and according to Karl Rove it's going to be a dandy campaigning tool for years to come.
3. The Nixonian when-the-president-does-it-it's-not-illegal. I lived through Nixon as Vice President and President and this attitude is still wrong and Nixon is still guilty.
We are a nation where the rule of law is one of stongest bonds we have. Without that, what are we? Just another American country with a stongman?
February 6, 2006 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Anyone who is going to argue they put themselves above the law and abused the constitution to defend the Nation... bit of a contradiction there. I guess they forgot to add the "good intentions" clause into the constituion which overrides the law, checks and balances.
Good intentions. I mean when does someone actually admit to abusing power for a greedy self interest? Isn't it always "for the public good" the way they tell it?
King George probably wanted to rule America for our own good too. Germany just wanted to reunite the German, Austrian, and Polish family. Oh and the French, and the Russian, etc. McCarthy just wanted to save us from ourselves. Hoover just wanted to protect us from the bad influence of people like Martin Luther King.
Yes, so many good intentions.
February 6, 2006 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What's in question is whether they have a legitimate basis to violate FISA, not whether they are"
I, too, should have been clearer. This is the only point of interest to me; How to find the balance between personal freedom and national security. FISA, after all, is a recent invention passed to remedy old excesses. Is it relevant today...or is it outdated and counter-productive? Noone can claim the challanges we face today are those of WWII or VietNam. Why then should we assume that laws of that era are good today?
"America will survive long after AQ is but a bitter memory - if it adheres to its principles."
I'm old enough to have seen this kind of overheated rhetoric many times before. We survived slavery and Civil War, genocidal destruction of American Indian culture, conquest and dispossion of Mexico, of the Phillipines, of VietNam, Jim Crow and segregation, draft riots, internment of most of our citizens of Japanese ancestry and seizure of their property, etc, etc. Your predictions are of no value.
"As for the Alien and Sedition laws, surely you jest? What the hell do they have to do with whether it's acceptable for president bush to violate FISA?"
I'm not the one who brought the Founders into this but the fact is the tension between national security and personal freedoms is an old one and that law is a perfect example (even though many claim the law was more about political power than anything else).
February 6, 2006 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
selfinterest, Your statement:
"Until such time as that happens and the Administration is found guilty it is presumed innocent."
Really refers to the way a jury has to approach its job. We all form opinions about guilt or innocence based on what we know and believe. There is nothing wrong with becoming knowledgeable about a situation, which I believe is part of what we are doing here, and then deciding our own personal take on it.
Your idea of not forming any opinion sounds specious to me. These blogs and comments are full of peoples' ideas and their decisions based on the information. What is wrong with that?
Jan Knaus
February 6, 2006 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"i like to practice up on the arguments!"
Good for you! That's why I'm here. Long ago my thinking led me to Zero Population Growth. They faced the same conflict that currently is dividing the Sierra Club; what to do about the Third World. I was dissatisfied with liberal thinking on that...and on many other things so I began to explore the Right (in exactly the same way I'm now exploring this site). I think I understand their position pretty well now. From time to time I had e-mail disputes with Josh Marshall and decided it I had to do better than that. So here I am, provoking controversy, disputing with passion.
If you think I'm an ass and don't know what I'm talking about...have at it. Let's see what you're made of.
February 6, 2006 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not defending the Alien and Sedition acts. I was pointing out that the Founders themselves were not successful in resolving the tension between personal freedom and national security, between individual rights and government power.
February 6, 2006 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, come on!
But they've said they've intercepted communication between Muslims in the US and AlQaida. Surely, that's of legitimate interest to our government.
Sadly, we just don't believe these people!!!!! If they have intercepted those kind of communications, where are the arrests? Where are the indictments? This Administration would NEVER shrink from touting ANY success. After all, their successes are so few that they tout things that are NOT successes.
If they had anything on "muslims in the US & AlQaida" don't you know it would be in the headlines of every newspaper, and would be the opening gambit for Fox News. Why hasn't it been? Because like all Bush's other misadventures, this is also a failure. That is minor, though, because what really matters is that THIS misadventure is an assault on our laws and our Constitution.
Jan Knaus
February 6, 2006 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So we can have the Bush-packed courts destroy our checks and balances system"
More overheated rhetoric but you do realize that the phrase you use - court packing - was the way FDR's actions were described when he attempted to do just that in the '30s because he didn't like the way the Court was ruling? And that something similar occured in the early 19th century when one of our Presidents had 6 nominees turned down for political reasons?
February 6, 2006 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
February 6, 2006 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a fine line.
Obviously a prosecuter wants the jury to believe the defendent is guilty and argues to prove it. Equally obvious that in all disputes each side believes the other is wrong. And then there are those who are dissatisfied with Court or jury rulings. Our country supports all of these positions.
But it's important to characterize them correctly, to recognize why we have juries and Courts and why we accept their legitimacy.
February 6, 2006 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"excellent point"
Exactly. That's why free speech is so important. No one is free of bias, self-righteousness, greed, lust, pride. Least of all ones-self. Power increases temptation but powerlessness fuels anger and jealosy.
February 6, 2006 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
selfinterest, this is probably my last response to you, because it does seem to be a waste of time. You say you are "exploring this site" you think you "understand their position" and you are "provoking controversy." I really think you flatter yourself.
You show no inclination to listen to others; your idea of exploration is kinda like what DeGama did to the Inca's -- in other words, demonstrating no sense of respect of TPM commenter's ideas, and your "provoking" amounts only to spouting platitudes that the RNC sends out to trolls to use at sites that are dedicated to discussions.
You would do yourself a favor if you would do the very things you claim to do. You might learn something, and maybe we would too.
Jan Knaus
February 6, 2006 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Wikipedia
Debunkers are skeptics who attempt to disprove and pursues what they consider to be false, unscientific, bizarre or abnormal claims. The ultimate intent of the debunking, according to some, is to conclusively disprove the validity of an event, theory, and/or phenomenon by exposing it as nonsense. According to Wiktionary (see external link), debunk means To discredit, or expose to ridicule the falsehood or the exaggerated claims of something.
Topics that many debunkers focus on include U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, research outside mainstream science, or general pseudoscience. The debunker is applied when a professional performs research and/or writes an article with the specific intent of proving or disproving a bizarre or abnormal claim, such as those about U.F.O.s or other paranormal phenomenon, and conclusively disproves the validity of the event and/or object.
As a slang term, debunking is the act of disproval of a proposal or theory, generally in an academic or scientific sense. The term debunk originated in 1923, when American novelist William Woodward (1874-1950) used it to mean to "take the bunk out of things."
Often the term "debunkery" is not limited to arguments about scientific validity. It can also be used in a more general sense at attempts to discredit any opposing point of view, such as that of a political opponent. However, the further debunkery is removed from objective argument of fact, the more likely it is to become just another form of propaganda. The TV show (as of 2005) MythBusters debunks current urban legends and myths.
February 6, 2006 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since your post is just a personal attack there's nothing to dispute.
February 6, 2006 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, Nick. Your comment:
Good intentions. I mean when does someone actually admit to abusing power for a greedy self interest? Isn't it always "for the public good" the way they tell it? ]
...reminded me of something a professor once told me that I've never found to be wrong. She said that whenever anyone talks about something being in "your own best interest..."
Watch Out!!!!
Jan Knaus
February 6, 2006 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, the Administration was clearly wrong on Plame, clearly hyped the immediacy of the danger posed by Saddam, and may be wrong about FISA. But it was not clearly wrong about the need for war, not clearly wrong about Islamic fundamentalists, and not clearly wrong about wire-tapping or national security...and you certainly do not know how much damage was done by exposing covert wiretapping.
What was evident in Washington's day, and remains true today, is that partisanship is a threat to the Republic because it blinds its adherants to larger concerns. It would be nice if the world was a safe, orderly place where lying had no uses...but it isn't and it does.
I can't say for sure but it seems logical that the Administration calculated that they could not get changes in FISA and that it was necessary to act despite it. Maybe they were right. I don't know.
February 6, 2006 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If they have intercepted those kind of communications, where are the arrests?"
Sami Al-Arian off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more.
February 6, 2006 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
despite well-meaning advice from others, sure i'll have another go at ol' selfinterest.
Your first issue - is FISA appropriate for today's circumstances - is non-germane, because the bush administration made it non-germane. They are the ones who have steadfastly refused to seek a revision to FISA if they've got a good one to suggest. Instead, they have manufactured a pathetic little argument that AUMF, in conjunction with the commander-in-chief power that they claim AUMF triggered at least as long as Al Qaeda remains in existence (Gonzalez today), allows them to violate FISA. This is not an attempt to solve any problems of liberty and national security; this is, as Feingold said very effectively today, a pre-1776 mindset.
Which reminds me: good grief, man (or woman), you are kidding, right? just because it's 2006 doesn't mean that everything that came before should be ripped up and thrown out. Hell, the constitution is so old it was written by hand: surely, by the standards you are suggesting, we should be calling a constitutional convention to start over, since the 21st century is rather different than the 18th.
we have a system: a constitutional republic. There are 3 branches of government in it. The role of the executive in that system is to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed. It is not unheard of for an executive to choose to ignore a given law, but to flat out violate it is something else altogether.
your second point i'll simply ignore, other than to note that there is nothing "overheated" about noting that violating the constitutional formalities, pugnaciously at that, is a bigger threat to america's existence than Al Qaeda.
and your third point continues to avoid the obvious: the question isn't how best to balance liberty and national security. Were that the issue, the Bush adminsitration would work with Congress to revise FISA, should it need to be revised. The question is whether it's acceptable for a president to decide that he can violate a law on specious grounds, which is why summoning up the Alien and Sedition Act is completely irrelevant.
keep trying, selfinterest, you're bound to hit on a good argument one of these times - even monkeys produce shakespeare eventually.
February 6, 2006 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
given a choice between a dictionary and wikipedia on the defintion of a word, i choose a dictionary. don't ask me why selfinterest picks wikipedia....
February 6, 2006 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In any case, you do realize that these kinds of things are at the heart of legitimate government secrecy? Breaking of codes, interception of communications, surveillance. They're ligitimate and legitimately kept secret. The problem occurs because it's so easy to conflate legitimate efforts with attempts to preserve partisan power or cover up mistakes.
February 6, 2006 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
we won't divert ourselves to the war in iraq here, or other sidelights.
we'll just note that selfinterest has now conceded the essential point:
I can't say for sure but it seems logical that the Administration calculated that they could not get changes in FISA and that it was necessary to act despite it.
That is to say, they calculated that they couldn't get their own party - which, with the exception of harriet meiers, has supported every single administration proposal for the last 5 years - to make changes in FISA and therefore they made up an argument that they had a right to break the law. That would be an unacceptable position if George Washington took it, and it's certainly an unacceptable position for George Bush to take.
February 6, 2006 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gore Vidal says the unilateral ravaging of Iraq is not a war. He has also simplified the Bush legal arguments; the 'war' is just an excuse to steal your money and lock you up.
If Bruce Springsteen and even 'Sweet Neocon' singer Mick Jagger can see the lies and the crimes against democracy, it should be obvious to almost everyone.
The phony BS of the Bush supporters is blatantly obvious in the stretched standards and missed recruitment numbers for the military. The Bush base has come out of their caves to support the war, harass pregnant women and gays, but they sure as heck don't sign up in the 'noble cause' in any great numbers. The Army couldn't even meet their target of 90,000 or so last year.
February 6, 2006 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point 1 - They felt they had to act despite FISA. You're free to attribute motives but not to claim that they could have easily gotten a revision if they'd proposed one. Never in a reasonable time and probably not at all. Feingold is making a political point, not sticking strictly to the facts. FISA was passed precisely because so many previous Presidents felt they had to act as Bush did. Maybe they were right and FISA was wrong.
Point 2- Saying FISA should be discarded or amended is not the same as saying the Constitution should be discarded. Not even the same as saying it should be amended. Not even close.
Point 3 - What constitutional formalities are you talking about? Presidents have done a lot more than occasionally ignoring a law...such as inventing pretexts to go to war, provoking an enemy into attacking us, interning citizens based on heritage...the list is long, very long. Sometimes the country has forgiven them, sometimes reviled them, occasionally reviled them but approved their actions. The Founders were well-aware of the difficulty of preventing too great an accumulation of power in peacre-time and while allowing such an accumulation in war-time. They did their best but the problem is still with us. I for one can't issue a blanket criticism of Presidents who have acted outside the letter of the law.
Point 4 - I've already answered you on this one. The President felt he had to act despite FISA. Congress is full of partisans and cannot always be counted upon to act reasonably. An uncomfortable thought but quite real...and quite realistic (Please DON'T take this as a justification of the President's actions. His actions will be judged by history, by their consequences. Just as all such actions by previous Presidents have been judged). The reference to the Alien and Sedition act remains valid, the Administration doesn't agree with your characterization of its justifications as "specious"...and neither does that portion of the electorate which selected him.
Point 5 - Monkeys who produce Shakespeare are probably better than humans who ridicule them.
February 6, 2006 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Wikipedia is modern and most dictionaries are not.
Debunking, when used in the political sphere, is very close to muck-raking and both are often little more than partisan propaganda. That's because much in the political sphere is judgement, not fact; estimating the motives of opponents, trying to predict consequences of actions based on incomplete evidence and uncertain analysis, giving weight to competing interests, etc.
February 6, 2006 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
But they've said they've intercepted communication between Muslims in the US and AlQaida.
Um, if you haven't noticed yet, they lie.
Dissent Protects Democracy
February 6, 2006 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"That is to say, they calculated that they couldn't get their own party - which, with the exception of harriet meiers, has supported every single administration proposal for the last 5 years - to make changes in FISA and therefore they made up an argument that they had a right to break the law."
Right. Disturbing, isn't it? But we'll see whether it's really that simple. If you're analysis is correct that party will not support the President in his justifications. I'm betting it will.
February 6, 2006 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
aw 'cmon selfinterest: here i'm trying to take you seriously, and you produce silliness like it's entirely speculative on my part to assume that they couldn't shove through a change in FISA with a republican majority? a majority that has passed every single piece of crap they've thrown out there?
still, let's credit you with something: you're at least acknowledging that they aren't following FISA, which is to say they are breaking FISA, which was larry's very original point that you disputed. so there's been some progress.
so, w/r/t point 1: i didn't ascribe motivation. that the president wants to do something isn't the same as having the right to do it. this is nixonian thinking: if the president does it, that means it's not illegal.
w/r/t point 2: so why is it that a law passed in 1978 and ammended several times since (most recenlty 2001) is out of date whereas the constitution, written 225 years ago, isn't? what are the standards you're applying here? (do bear in mind that FISA actually includes a section about wartime, so it's not like they didn't think about what might happen if a real war broke out)
point 3: constitutional formalities are the essence of the constitutional republic that we inhabit. they include the basic responsibility of the president to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed. is that how you would characterize what's going on here?
point 4: let's see, let's see: who was president when the Alien and Sedition laws were passed? Adams? regardless, if the president at the time chose to violate the alien and sedition act, then you'd have a useful analogy. Discussing disputes about a law that Congress passed is completely dissimilar to discussing a president violating a law that Congress passed and then insisting that he was on firm consitutional ground because of AUMF, even if Congress disputes that contention. Analogy fails the first test: it's not analogous.
and i need not wait for the judgement of history: in the long run, we're all dead. i'm prepared to judge today, because we have enough evidence: George Bush is violating FISA, willfully and continuously, and he's proud of it. that's dead wrong.
point 5: but i'm not making fun of monkeys. i'm making fun of you.
February 6, 2006 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh for heaven's sake: merriam webster is every bit as modern as wikipedia. what kind of silly remark is that?
now, disputing opinions isn't debunking, but that's not what launched this little tet-a-tet within the larger dispute we're having....
February 6, 2006 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
my god, we are making progress! selfinterest is conceding that it's disturbing to see a president willfully break the law.
it's just one more step from there, selfinterest, to the logical conclusion: if bush has a good basis for changing the law, let him propose it. then we can see who supports it and who doesn't. i'd much rather oppose a bad FISA law that was legitimately debated and passed than have to spend my time concerned with a president breaking the law on his own volition.
February 6, 2006 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Um, if you haven't noticed yet, they lie."
Of course they lie. All politicians lie. They have to. Surely you don't believe that fairy tale about Washington and the cherry tree? Surely you understand that Machiavelli, and others, were describing reality?
But they don't lie about everything, or most things, and they lie in support of their goals, not arbitrarily. It happens that I believe Islamic fundamentalists are fundamentally opposed to my interests and the Administration is not. So I believe the Administration about this.
February 6, 2006 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Specter was not persuaded by the AG's arguments.
Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) was pretty unhappy with the AG. Possibly because in 2002 he offered to rewrite the FISA statutes to streamline the process and he suggested reducing the "probable cause" standard to "reasonable basis." The Justice department answered that they did not need this and were concerned that the proposal might be unconstitutional.
That there are reportedly thousand of dead-end leads flooding the FBI suggests to me they are truly terrified and think it's WW III.
As to damage, get real. Osama went dark in 1998. These guys follow our news closely, for the reason their lives are at risk. They change their code words regularly (wedding used to mean attack, no more). This was not a surprise to anyone.
By comparison, Plame was gold-standard intelligence. Absolutely sourced, perfectly precise, immediately useful. You can't get better info than that.
February 6, 2006 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you the kind of Republican that used to keep us Democrats honest on points such "can we pay for it?" Glad there's still one around, so bi-partisanship can come back.
February 6, 2006 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"you produce silliness like it's entirely speculative on my part to assume that they couldn't shove through a change in FISA with a republican majority?"
Is it silliness to assume that these very experienced guys, backed by the greatest accumulation of wealth and power ever seen, sat down and considered the consequences of their actions? Is it silliness to think they analyzed very carefully the reasons they wanted the wiretaps, the laws they might or might not be breaking, the possibility of discovery, the political and legal consequences? Is it silliness to assume party leaders and opinion-makers were consulted? I'd bet they calculated that it was better that Bush - who will not be up for re-election - take the heat rather than expose the party to charges of trampling on personal liberties, which they're already facing over the Patriot Act...and that it would be easier and better to support the President than try to amend FISA. Something like that anyway.
" so there's been some progress."
Look at it that way if you like.
" i didn't ascribe motivation"
I thought there was some reference to power grabbing. Perhaps I confused yours with another post. Sorry.
"so why is it that a law passed in 1978 and ammended several times since (most recenlty 2001) is out of date whereas the constitution, written 225 years ago, isn't?"
I don't know. Some things work out, others don't. More seriously, there are lots of questions like that...a consequence of 911. For example, why was it necessary to switch to a tactic of pre-emptive war? We'll have to see how it plays out and, even then, we'll be lucky if there's a definitive answer.
" is that how you would characterize what's going on here?"
The President has lots of responsibilities. Sometimes it's not possible to be true to all of them at the same time. In law that's recognized when Judges weigh competing interests.
"Discussing disputes about a law that Congress passed is completely dissimilar to discussing a president violating a law that Congress passed...Analogy fails the first test: it's not analogous."
Well I don't agree. I wasn't intent upon producing an exact analogy but rather in showing that balancing personal liberty against government power or national security was an old, old problem that confounded the Founders. But if it's an exact analogy you want how about FDR's violation of the Neutrality act with Lend-Lease? That's just off the top of my head but I know enough about history to know that a not very difficult search would produce one. Might even find something as early as Jefferson. After all, Marbury vs. Madison was provoked by something.
"George Bush is violating FISA, willfully and continuously, and he's proud of it. that's dead wrong."
You can judge all you want. Most people make judgements...and are wrong.
February 6, 2006 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"oh for heaven's sake: merriam webster is every bit as modern as wikipedia. what kind of silly remark is that?"
Well, then look at it this way. Wikipedia had a definition I liked. That's good enough. Debunking, in the political sphere, is a long, long way from proving. That was my point.
February 6, 2006 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"my god, we are making progress! selfinterest is conceding that it's disturbing to see a president willfully break the law."
I see I have to be far more careful than I'm probably capable of being. I didn't say I was disturbed. I anticipated you would be.
"i'd much rather oppose a bad FISA law that was legitimately debated and passed than have to spend my time concerned with a president breaking the law on his own volition."
As so often happens in life you're not going to get your way, you're going to have to deal with what you get.
February 6, 2006 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush [Administration, Syndicate, Klan, Cell? You need to pick one] can claim damage to a program - legal or illegal - if national security is compromised.
I guess they could claim that. But they are also claiming the news reports are wrong - if the reports are wrong, the whole premise goes up in smoke.
Then there's the "you told Al Qaeda we're listening to their phones" gimmick.
Does Abu G think that AQ didn't know that?
Do you think that AG really thinks that AQ doesn't know we're listening?
You're a better troll than most, but this just shows the heat is really getting to Karl. Methinks he'll be out of the kitchen by year end.
February 6, 2006 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, twtunes, I am. I used to be in the solid middle, but as my party has careened to the right, I think I now am a representative of the left wing of the GOP. sigh.
February 6, 2006 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not comfortable with this format yet so I'm not sure who or what you're responding to. My reply might not fit but
From your observation it's clear that the Administration was thinking a great deal about FISA very early in the game.
The government is truly terrified that nuclear weapons might be detonated in an American city. George Friedman, founder of Stratfor, wrote a book about that. Bob Woodward did too.
You know more about the threat posed by bin Ladin and other Islamic fundamentalists than our government? Not likely. In fact, absolutely not believable...and you don't know anything about Plame's work or its value, either.
February 6, 2006 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"in order to gain more and more power"
I'm sorry but there are too many posters for me to keep track of.&nbs