Good Morning!
Longwood Gardens. May, 2013. Photo by: joanneleon
Longwood Gardens. May, 2013. Photo by: joanneleon
PETER FRAMPTON ★ BABY I LOVE YOUR WAY ♫ 1975
News & Opinion
I wonder if some of the PATRIOT Act provisions and other laws, policies, that should have been questioned and opposed a long time ago will now get more of a challenge. Is it too much to hope for that changes will be made as a result of all of this? Is it too naive to think that the whistleblower witch hunt might get some more scrutiny too? It's not like people and groups like the ACLU have not been fighting them all along. The arguments about the methods used by DoJ are important. It looks like DoJ would have been challenged in court if they had gone to a judge trying to get this big heap of stuff from AP. So was the highest prosecutor in the land maneuvering to avoid a judge and subvert the Constitution? (And that doesn't even get into the things that probably motivated them to do this witch hunt in the first place, see: Brennan, John O.) There are several really interesting and slimy things about this whole story and no, it's not just a GOP non-scandal, as some apologists on the left would have you believe.
THE LAW BEHIND THE A.P. PHONE-RECORD SCANDAL
The cowardly move by the Justice Department to subpoena two months of the A.P.’s phone records, both of its office lines and of the home phones of individual reporters, is potentially a breach of the Justice Department’s own guidelines. Even more important, it prevented the A.P. from seeking a judicial review of the action. Some months ago, apparently, the government sent a subpoena (or subpoenas) for the records to the phone companies that serve those offices and individuals, and the companies provided the records without any notice to the A.P. If subpoenas had been served directly on the A.P. or its individual reporters, they would have had an opportunity to go to court to file a motion to quash the subpoenas. What would have happened in court is anybody’s guess—there is no federal shield law that would protect reporters from having to testify before a criminal grand jury—but the Justice Department avoided the issue altogether by not notifying the A.P. that it even wanted this information. Even beyond the outrageous and overreaching action against the journalists, this is a blatant attempt to avoid the oversight function of the courts.
Eric Holder's Justice Department Hammered By Democrats Over AP Subpoenas
"First let me say, it made me sick to my stomach how broad the subpoenas were," Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) told The Huffington Post. "I do think in fairness, which I know that journalists would want, I want to hear the rationale by the Department of Justice, and I want to hear the explanation. But I think under any scenario, it would appear to have a chilling effect."
"I have trouble defending what the Justice Department did," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on Capitol Hill. "I really believe in the First Amendment. I think it's one of the great things we have as a country. I don't know who did it, why it was done, but it's inexcusable. There's no way to justify this."
If UndieBomb 2.0 Is One of the Worst Leaks of Holder’s Career, Why Is John Brennan CIA Director?</'a>
In a press conference today, Eric Holder didn’t let recusal from the UndieBomb 2.0 leak investigation stop him from commenting on it. Among other things, he claimed this one of the most serious leaks he has seen since he started as a prosecutor in 1976.
This was a very serious leak. A very, very serious leak. I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976, and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk. And that is not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk.
But here’s the thing. According to his own sworn testimony, John Brennan had a key role in providing hints that led to the actually damaging parts of the leak.
Here is a PDF with a transcript from Brennan's confirmation hearing,
Transcript. Take some time to open it and search for the word "leaks". You will find some exchanges in there about Brennan's role in this and some harsh questioning by a few senators. Brennan is the one who is responsible for the most serious leak, the one that caused big problems for our intel organizations and those of our partners. Brennan does his best to deflect the blame onto the AP. Read it and you will have a lot of insight into what is going on here. And keep in mind also that in the Kiriakou case, the DoJ was not going to prosecute, but the CIA forced it to happen. Read this post by Marcy to learn more about that. And I should note that I am the one drawing this parallel, not Marcy. This is just for illustration of how things can go and what can happen when CIA decides they want a scalp.
"CIA’s Torturers Get Their Scalp" In that case it was probably retaliation and an incentive for no one else to ever talk about the operators in the torture program. In this case it looks a lot more like Brennan trying to deflect the blame for something he himself did. Talk about abuse of power...
Holder press conference yesterday
AG ERIC HOLDER HOLDS NEWS CONFERENCE
Cannot embed
DS Wright
Think Progress Shows Stunning Hypocrisy On Government Spying
Think Progress, the blog for the non-partisan Center On American Progress, has made a name for itself pretending to be a “progressive” news and analysis site despite reflexively defending the Democratic Party and being funded by an organization that refuses to disclose its donors (one hint it means “to soar” in Esperanto). But now the site has gone from being a party organ dishonestly posing as a group of principled activists into defending the most Nixonian practices of the Obama Administration.
[...]
Previously the site was relentless in attacking the Bush Administration for similar practices making their current position delegitimizing.
The Bush administration doesn’t argue that warrantless wiretapping was something specifically contemplated in the text or by Congress. Rather, the administration argues that it is implied as part of a broad authorization to “use all necessary and appropriate force.”
The Supreme Court has rejected that expansive interpretation. It’s a huge blow to the administration’s legal rationale for warrantless wiretapping.
When fierce defender Jonathan Alter is saying things like this, it's bad.
Action
Blog Posts and Tweets of Interest
Evening Blues
Peter Frampton - Show Me the Way