The invasive illegal domestic spying that Bush began via the NSA high technology BEFORE the Sept. 11 attack on New York City is now compounded by the corporate sector's secret police deputized by the FBI and called INFRAGARD.

Usurper Bush has portrayed his spying as useful to so-called homeland  security. ('Homeland' is a Nazi term, by the way; don't use it and substitute 'domestic' instead). But the claims on the usefulness of the unlimited and unregulated NSA (with telecom corporations) spying on our phone calls and computer communications, and rogue InfraGard spying on our actions are just misleading claptrap.

Forget these claims that attempt to legitimize the illegal spying, monitoring, scanning. The cat is out of the bag. These spying schemes exist to CATEGORIZE U.S. citizens, and to identify citizens who oppose corporatist/Christianist fascistic behavior. The head of the FBI speaking to an audience of InfraGard corporate secret FBI deputies, said that InfraGard powers can be used against...

The president is flat out lying about the need for Congress to pass a bill authorizing warrantless wiretaps and giving immunity to the telecom industry. He's lying to protect his own sorry ass.

Dodd has shown that one senator, supported by 41 senators (not 60 as claimed by Reid and Pelosi), can bring the Bush war machine to a grinding halt. Now he has to do it.

One month from today, on September 21, 2007, Americans in hundreds of towns and cities across this country will be taking part in Iraq Moratorium events in their communities.  Are you going to plan or participate in an Iraq Moratorium event?  

I hope so.  It's time to bring our soldiers home.

If Democrats do not have the moral courage to stand united against these criminals in the White House, the American people will have to.  Tens of millions of them know we do not have an American president, we have a CIA network destroying, illegal wiretapping, human being torturing, American soldier killing son of a bitch fouling our White House with his treachery.  They know we do not have a functioning Congress of American lawmakers, we have a clusterfuck parade of craven politicians who have been kissing the ass of a psychopath for seven years.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has ordered the ACLU's lawsuit seeking to end the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance program remanded to Judge Anna Diggs Taylor -- who had ruled the program unconstitutional in August of last year -- with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of standing.

Is the program still unconstitutional? Yes, but only in theory. Because the 6th Circuit says the ACLU didn't prove it was directly injured by the violation, and therefore has no standing to bring the suit in the first place.

Sorry, everyone!

Hope some nice censure fixes your Constitution for you!

And remember, if the subpoenas don't work, there's always the courts, right?

Right?

The Hill reported the other day that certain Republicans were hinting that they might support criminal contempt charges against "administration" officials who refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas.

Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), vice chairman of the GOP conference, told The Hill on Friday that he thinks Republican cooperation with a criminal contempt finding will be required.

"It’s just a formal process that sets up a legal challenge," Cornyn said. "We’ve got to cut out some of the politics and get this to the courts."

One Senate GOP aide, requesting anonymity, agreed that Republicans might approve a contempt finding as a procedural step. Should the White House continue to resist the subpoenas, only one of the two chambers has to approve a criminal citation before the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia can empanel a grand jury.

Great, right? Not only is it a sign of some conscience among Republicans, but it represents the long-awaited separation between Hill GOPers and Bush.

Maybe. Maybe not. Let's take a look at what Congressional Republicans are ultimately saying about the situation:

"At the end of the day, this will be settled by the courts," Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said.

"I think this is an issue that’s going to be handled by the courts," agreed Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).

"In the end, the courts will decide this anyway," said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.)

"We can’t have a Congress that’s constantly bringing administration officials in to harass them," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). "But it’s a matter for the courts."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called a contempt vote "the last thing the country needs," but advised lawmakers to "let the courts fight this out."

Hmm. Gee. What do you think Republicans would like to see here?

And more importantly, why do you think Republicans want to see this?

Those of you who've read a little bit about the actual process by which a contempt of Congress charge turns into a criminal case know why. And so does former House general counsel Stanley Brand:

Citing the precedent of a 1982 contempt citation, however, Brand noted another problem: "The U.S. attorney won’t necessarily bring this matter to a grand jury. So it could be an act of futility."

Again, those of you who've read about the process of bringing contempt charges know that the 1982 citation Brand references is that of Reagan era EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford, and that in that case the US Attorney, at the instruction of the White House, declined to prosecute the charges, and instead filed suit to enjoin enforcement of the contempt charges.

Bit of bad news for you on that score, folks. The White House counsel who drove the legal strategy in the Gorsuch case?

One Fred F. Fielding.

And your current George W. Bush White House counsel?

Mr. Fred F. Fielding.

In 1982, during current White House Counsel Fred Fielding’s first stint in the position, the U.S. attorney declined to bring a contempt charge against a Reagan administration official, instead seeking an injunction against the House.

Wow. Whoops!

But Leahy has predicted that the capital’s sitting U.S. attorney would be hard-pressed this year to ignore a criminal finding.

Oh. Well, that's good. "Hard-pressed."

Like with the Libby non-pardon pardon.

And that's the thing to be thinking about here. George W. Bush has just demonstrated for us that he approaches such decisions with no feelings of trepidation. Why would he be any more concerned about either directing the already-corrupt Alberto Gonzales "Justice" Department to block any contempt prosecutions?

Or worse, send word to Congressional Republicans that they're free to cover their asses politically by appearing to split with him in approving contempt charges, just as we cheer Congressional Democrats for threatening. Why might that be "worse?" Well, at this point, we have to ask what prevents the "administration" from using the court proceedings to run the clock, only to undo it all with a raft of pardons for the convicted contemnors?

In other words, do we have any guarantees that this isn't the political equivalent of football's "influence block?" What do football coaches tell players about that?

An influence block is not really a block. It is a technique used by the offensive linemen to get the defenders to look or pull in the wrong direction therefore making it easier to trap the defender or to take him away from the play. The influence block is the hardest block for a defender to defeat. In fact, the only way I know to defeat the Influence block is to read the scouting reports and watch the game films. And when you see that a team is using the influence block, let your defensive linemen know so that they may be ready for it. Sometime just knowing that your opponent uses this block, is enough to keep you out of trouble.

Maybe that's better known to you in terms of Uncle Remus' briar patch. But the influence block is all about convincing defenders that things are going his way, and that he's beaten his man. Then, rushing forward to the spot where he's sure his superior skills have allowed him to meet and tackle the ball carrier, he finds instead that the running back has gone behind him, right into the spot where he once stood. The blockers have let the defense penetrate the backfield and thereby taken them out of the play, but all the while the defenders were sure this was the moment they'd been waiting for, and they'd finally won the battle.

And the only way to defeat the influence block? Study the game films. What does the opposition have a record of doing? Fred Fielding brings experience in blocking contempt prosecutions outright. Bush himself brings experience in short-circuiting the whole process with pardons.

What do the scouting reports tell you, Judiciary Committee Democrats?

Isikoff has the story:

The Senate and House Intelligence Committees are asking former attorney general John Ashcroft to testify about a March 2004 hospital-room confrontation during which he refused to sign off on a continuation of President Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program, according to congressional and administration sources.

According to Isikoff both the Senate and the House plan on closed door meetings with Ashcroft later this month.  Normally I'm an open the doors and let the sunshine in kind of guy, but I think these closed door meetings are necessary at least in the first stages.  

Ever since October 2001, a felony has been committed every time an American citizen has been illegally spied on.   Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee provides damning evidence that George Walker Bush is guilty of millions of felonies.  Throughout these years of illegal NSA spying, how many felonies has Bush committed?  5 million?  10 million?  50 million?  300 million?   Has the NSA been spying on all of us every day for more than five years?  How many felonies would that be?   10 billion?  10 trillion?    

Do Bush/Cheney et al have to commit felonies at the speed of light before Democrats will start Impeachment hearings?        

If Cheney should answer some big questions honestly or resign, so should Bush. And if he won't come clean, Congress needs to step up to the plate and initiate impeachment hearings.

Will daylight finally be shed on the warrantless spying on Americans?

At the Washington Post (via AP):

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Wednesday he will turn over secret documents detailing the government's domestic spying program, ending a two-week standoff with the Senate Judiciary Committee over surveillance targeting terror suspects.

The administration's announcement that it will suddenly start obeying the FISA law is not about saving face; it's about saving the president's ass.

Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, charged: "Hidden in the fine print are provisions which grant the administration authority to maintain permanent records on innocent U.S. citizens, granting the administration new authority to demand personal records without court review, and terminating any and all legal challenges to unlawful wiretapping."
Link

Today a staggering amount of personal information is being collected by the government on millions of Americans. This information is being used to compile a massive social network of American citizens that we are told is for the purpose of identifying terrorist cells. But others say it is easy for terrorists to avoid being caught up into this type of data-mining. I find it curious that what may be of little value in uncloaking terrorist cells is precisely the type of data-mining you would dream about for political election microtargeting.

I said it would happen. I said the "administration" would deny that Hamdan prohibited the NSA spying program. I said the "administration" would deny even that Hamdan prohibited torture. I even said that they would eventually deny that Hamdan, by itself, means anything more than that they were missing some necessary paperwork -- a missing permission slip, perhaps.

And surely, some of the bloggers we all know and love will point out that that "paperwork" is, in fact, explicit Congressional authorization. And that that's no mere trifle.

No, it's not. And here it comes.

I wish I was making this shit up:

A lawsuit aimed at preventing the Maine Public Utilities Commission from inquiring into Verizon Communication's alleged cooperation with a domestic surveillance program marks a new level of aggressiveness by the federal government, privacy advocates say.

Maine is the third state to be sued in federal court for looking into charges that telecommunications companies cooperated with the government inwarrantless wiretapping and data mining programs.

And it's a new low even for Bush for another reason, below the fold.