Monday 19 December 2005

Boxer asks presidential scholars about former White House counsel's statement that Bush admitted to an 'impeachable offense.'

    Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean's statement that President Bush admitted to an "impeachable offense" when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

    Boxer said, "I take very seriously Mr. Dean's comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future."

    Boxer's letter is as follows:

    On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

    On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon's counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

    This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

    Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean's statement.

    Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

    Sincerely,

    Barbara Boxer
    United States Senator

    Go to Original

    Rep. Lewis Calls for Bush Impeachment
    The Associated Press

    Tuesday 20 December 2005

    Atlanta - U.S. Representative John Lewis said in a radio interview on Monday that President Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in authorizing spying on Americans.

    The Democratic congressman from Georgia told WAOK-AM that he would sign a bill of impeachment if one was drawn up and that the House of Representatives should consider such a move.

    Lewis is among several Democrats who have voiced discontent with Sunday night's television speech, where Bush asked Americans to continue to support the Iraq War. Lewis is the first major House figure to suggest impeaching Bush.

    Lewis said -quote- "It's a very serious charge, but he violated the law.The president should abide by the law. He deliberately, systematically violated the law. He is not King, he is president."

  -------

This is an interesting read...former NSA agents don't like what they are seeing with Bush.

jd

Wiretap Mystery: Spooks React

A few current and former signals intelligence guys have been checking in since this NSA domestic spying story broke. Their reactions range between mildly creeped out and completely pissed off.

All of the SigInt specialists emphasized repeatedly that keeping tabs on Americans is way beyond the bounds of what they ordinarily do -- no matter what the conspiracy crowd may think.

"It's drilled into you from minute one that you should not ever, ever, EVER, under any fucking circumstances turn this massive apparatus on an American citizen," one source says. "You do a lot of weird shit. But at
least you don't fuck with your own people."

Another, who's generally very pro-Administration, emphasized that the operation at least started with people that had Al-Qaeda connections -- with some mass-spying master list. As the Times, in its original story, noted:

"The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses
as quickly as possible, they said....In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said....Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002032.html

These two efforts are complementary - H.Res.635 seeks accountability for the Bush administration's monumental crimes, while H.Res.636 and H.Res.637 seek accountability for their coverups.

Ask your Congress Member to support these efforts!
http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=8329176

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

=====================================================================
WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT

TREASONGATE: A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOVERY:

Pardons May Be Voided For Criminal Prosecutions Flowing From "Cases of Impeachment"

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005_09_11_citizenspook_archive.html

The Constitution Voids Presidential Pardons For Criminal Convictions Or Indictments Flowing From "Cases of Impeachment" Where The Senate Has Voted To Convict.

(the image is only referenced in the Epilogue)

[UPDATED Sept 14, 2005, 7:15 a.m. Substantive additions are in red.]


PROLOGUE: Citizen Spook has timed this report to coincide with John Roberts' confirmation hearings for Chief Justice of The Supreme Court. Roberts' most important function, as far as the Bush White House is concerned, will be to ensure that presidential pardons, issued by Bush in relation to Treasongate offenses, will be upheld by the highest court in the land.

As Chief Justice, Roberts will have the most power to steer the court and to determine which justice will write the court's opinion on controversial topics. While the entire nation focuses on whether Roberts would overturn Roe v. Wade, much more important to the Bush White House is the role Roberts will play in the impending Constitutional crisis over presidential pardons for the Treasongate offenders.

Many readers of this blog have expressed concern that any indictments returned by Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury(s) will simply be nullified by presidential pardons. Their concern is certainly justified. Generally, the president's power to pardon is virtually unlimited and not subject to judicial review.

However, in researching the issue, I was pleasantly surprised to discover an obscure Constitutional device which insulates certain convictions/indictments from the broad pardon power granted to the president. This never before tested Constitutional process requires the House of Representatives to Impeach and the Senate to convict "civil Officers of the United States" so that pardons of those Officers pertaining to criminal prosecutions flowing from "Cases of Impeachment" can be voided.

The power to Impeach granted to Congress is essential to our Republican system of checks and balances. For what good are checks and balances if they are not employed to maintain the laws of the nation? If Fitzgerald's investigation properly alleges criminal activity by Government Officers involved with Treasongate offenses, Congress must begin Impeachment proceedings to remove those Officers.

The coming Supreme Court battle has never, in the history of American jurisprudence, been tested before. The question presented:

Whether "civil Officers of the United States", including the President and Vice President, can be pardoned for criminal convictions (or indictments prior to conviction) which flow from "Cases of Impeachment" where the Senate has voted to convict?

This issue has never been tested in our entire national history. Actually, I couldn't find a single legal discussion directly on point. No civil Officer of the United States has ever been Impeached in the House of Representatives, convicted in the Senate, then removed from office and successfully prosecuted in a criminal court only to be granted a presidential pardon.

According to the Constitution, "civil Officers of the United States" may be Impeached. So, for purposes of this analysis, we shall assume that various United States Officers, from the President and Vice President to Cabinet members and others in the State and Justice Departments, have committed impeachable offenses. We will also assume that the House has impeached these Officers after Patrick Fitzgerald's investigative report is released and that the Senate has voted to convict and thereafter removed them from office and that Grand Jury indictments have been returned following the Senate's conviction. And finally, we will also assume that the "sitting" president has issued sweeping pardons for every Officer indicted in criminal court.

This analysis will be limited to situations where convictions/indictments occur after House Impeachment and Senate conviction. Assuming indictments are returned by Fitzgerald's grand jury(s) prior to Impeachment, the president, despite the intense political fall out which is guaranteed to occur, may pardon those Officers involved, even himself. But Congress would still have a duty to Impeach those Officers. Assuming such Impeachments are followed by Senate convictions, all of the removed Officers will thereafter be subject to indictment, criminal prosecution and punishment.

Thereafter, according to a fair reading of the Constitution, criminal court indictments, convictions and sentences may not be pardoned when they flow from "Cases of Impeachment" where the Senate had voted to convict.

In order to avoid a double jeopardy defense, the Impeachment process should be completed prior to criminal trial prosecution and conviction. However, indictments alone do not trigger double jeopardy defenses.

It's well established that presidential pardons cannot overturn the "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment". Such "judgment" is directly limited, by the Constitution, to removal from office and disqualification from ever serving as an Officer of the United States.

The issue which has never been litigated before is: Whether civil Officers of the United States, removed from office by conviction in "Cases of Impeachment", who are later tried and punished in criminal courts, can thereafter be pardoned by the President? This report concludes that the Constitution bars any such pardon.

Until now, the White House could take some measure of confidence that, if all else fails, they will fall back on the erroneous public assumption that the broad pardon power granted to the president by the Constitution would shield them from criminal punishment for Treasongate offenses. But a well educated Congress and citizenry will make their illegal plight exponentially more difficult. And that is the purpose of this blog.

The presidential pardon power, when aimed at anything but "Cases of Impeachment", is virtually plenary. But the serious problem the Bush White House now faces is that most of the Treasongate perpetrators are "civil Officers of the Government" and are therefore subject to Impeachment.

Should those Officers be convicted in the Senate, following Impeachment in the House, they will nevertheless also be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in the form of prison sentences or the death penalty. Those convictions, indictments and sentences which flow from "Cases of Impeachment" may not, according to the Constitution, be pardoned.

CitizenSpook has prepared the following analysis to educate the American people for the coming Constitutional crisis regarding the broad sweeping grant of pardons soon to be issued by the Bush White House.

WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ABOUT PARDONS

Article 2, Section 3, Clause 1:

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

That's the only mention of pardons in the Constitution.

WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT

Impeachment is mentioned only six times in the Constitution:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5:

"The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6:

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments..."

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1:

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Article 2, Section 4:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 3:

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury..."

THE SUPREME COURT'S ANALYSIS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL PARDON POWER

It's a long established principle, upheld by the Supreme Court, and supported by commentary from the Constitutional Convention, that the presidential power to grant clemency is plenary except in "Cases of Impeachment."

In Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974), the Supreme Court affirmed this broad authority. Chief Justice Burger stated that the power to pardon flows from the Constitution and "it cannot be modified, abridged, or diminished by the Congress." Id. at 266. But the Supreme Court in Schick v. Reed also announced, in three separate quotes, the only instance, besides "Cases of Impeachment", where a presidential pardon would be unconstitutional:

"Additionally, considerations of public policy and humanitarian impulses support an interpretation of that power so as to permit the attachment of any condition which does not otherwise offend the Constitution."

"...the conclusion is inescapable that the pardoning power was intended to include the power to commute sentences on conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution..."

"We therefore hold that the pardoning power is an enumerated power of the Constitution and that its limitations, if any, must be found in the Constitution itself."

If a presidential pardon offends the Constitution, the pardon itself is unconstitutional. Having stated that, let me make it clear that the basis for my conclusion in this report does not depend exclusively on the Supreme Court's holding in Schick v. Reed. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court's opinion in that case certainly reinforces the conclusion of this report since the limitation of the presidential pardon power that I have discovered is found directly within the Constitution.

A CONSTITUTIONAL MYSTERY

The Constitution is a beautiful, albeit mysterious, creature. Sometimes it appears that different sections contradict each other, but such alleged contradictions, when followed to their logical conclusion, usually reveal the true intention and symbiotic relationship of Constitutional clauses.

An "apparent" Constitutional contradiction has helped me discover the conclusions of this report. The Constitution states, "The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

In Schick v. Reed, Justice Burger recognized that there wasn't much discussion about presidential pardons at the Constitutional convention. Burger relied on the following comments from the convention:

"Mr. Sherman moved to amend the `power to grant reprieves and pardons' so as to read `to grant reprieves until the next session of the Senate, and pardons with consent of the Senate.' " 2M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 419 (1911). [419 U.S. 256, 263]

Justice Berger then stated:

"The proposed amendment was rejected by a vote of 8-1. Ibid. This action confirms that, as in England in 1787, the pardoning power was intended to be generally free from legislative control."

The issue was also discussed by Daniel T. Kobil, Professor of Law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio, before the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution (February 28, 2001) :

"While a number of the delegates, including James Madison, agreed that the power to pardon treason should not be vested in the President alone, the framers ultimately were unwilling to allow the Senate to share the power to pardon."

It is not disputed that the power to pardon is granted by the Constitution to the president, and only to the president. Yet, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, at first glance, appears to give Congress their own power to pardon:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Reading the above, it seems to grant Congress the power to pardon civil Officers of the United States from criminal prosecution if a "Party" is Impeached in the House, but not convicted in the Senate; "...but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (Emphasis added.)

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 does not say, "but the Party Impeached shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment." It says, "but the Party convicted shall nevertheless..."

Does this grant Congress its own pardon power, to be exercised by Impeaching those it intended to protect from criminal prosecution, and thereafter choosing not to convict in the Senate?

The issue causes an apparent Constitutional contradiction since Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 contains the only specific mention of pardons in the Constitution, and the power is granted therein solely to the president. As stated above, both the framers at the Constitutional Convention and the Supreme Court have determined that the power to pardon is only granted to the president. Hence, a Constitutional mystery is before us.

Since it's clear that the framers firmly rejected the notion that Congress should share the power to pardon with the president, we must determine the true meaning of Article 1, Section 3, clause 7.

THE MYSTERY REVEALED: The Constitution Voids Pardons Aimed At Criminal Prosecutions Flowing From "Cases Of Impeachment" where the Senate has voted to convict.

By now, I'm sure you're wondering why I have consistently emphasized the term, "Cases of Impeachment". I have done this because the meaning those words are given by the Supreme Court in the very near future will determine, for all the world to see, whether our Constitutional Republic is truly protected by checks and balances or if we are a nation ruled by a federal mafia of made thugs.

The heart of this analysis is surprisingly simple.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States..."

Let's break down "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment..." Three things are mentioned:

1. JUDGMENT
2. CASES
3. IMPEACHMENT

"Impeachment" is the Constitutional process for determining whether the behavior of civil Officers of the United States warrants such Officers being removed from office. The power to exercise this process is granted exclusively to Congress.

"Cases" are made up of the underlying facts and laws reviewed by Congress during the Impeachment process.

"Judgment" is strictly defined by the Constitution and "shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States..."

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1:

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." (Emphasis added.)

Please note that this clause does not say:

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Judgments of Impeachment."

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 specifically rules that "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment" is limited to "removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States..."

It is undisputed that the president cannot use the pardon power to overturn the "judgment in Cases of Impeachment". If one of the president's men is removed from office, it is clearly established that such "judgment" cannot be reversed so as to allow the removed Officer to regain his position in the Government, nor can that Party ever again "hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."

The Constitutional limitation of the presidential pardon power enumerated in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 is not limited to the specific "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment" listed in Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7. Since the framers very carefully defined the limitations of "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment", their wording in Article 2, Section 2 Clause 1, "The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment", enumerates a limitation on the presidential pardon power which extends to criminal indictments, convictions and punishments flowing from the underlying facts and laws reviewed by Congress in "Cases of Impeachment"...but only when the Senate votes to convict.

I submit to you that this conclusion is completely supported by a sensible examination of the particular wording of the Constitution, the framer's intent, and the opinion of the Supreme Court in Schick v. Reed.

This conclusion also serves as a beacon of illumination for the mystery contained in the second part of Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7:

"...but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." (Emphasis added.)

The key words here are "convicted" and "shall". The framers were drawing a clear distinction between those Officers who would be Impeached and those Officers who would be Impeached and convicted.

A fair reading of this Clause implies that those Officers who were Impeached but not convicted "may be liable and subject to indictment...", and therefore reasonably pardoned whereas those Officers who are Impeached and convicted "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment..."

The Clauses work together, and must be read together. The mystery is resolved by the very words in the Constitution. The framers chose their words carefully. It appears that they were deeply concerned that Officers of the United States, who were so blatantly in violation of their duty and loyalty to the laws of this nation as to be Impeached in the House and convicted by a 2/3 majority in the Senate, should not be allowed to be pardoned for crimial prosecutions flowing from such "Cases of Impeachment."

Instead of granting the Congress their own pardon power, which was clearly not the intention of the framers, the meaning of this clause can only be understood in relation to the following:

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." (Emphasis added.)

"Cases of Impeachment" are fundamentally different animals than "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment". While the Constitution specifically defines exactly what the "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment" must always be, it is silent as to what "Cases of Impeachment" are.

This makes sense when you consider that the circumstances, facts and laws that will make up every "Case of Impeachment" will be different from every other "Case of Impeachment" while the opposite is true of "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment", which, according to Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7, must always the same.

The legal meaning of the Constitution's distinction between the words "Judgment" and "Cases" has never been litigated in the history of American jurisprudence. My legal research has not revealed even one theoretical discussion of the distinction prior to this report.

"...but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

As previously stated, this Clause does not grant Congress its own pardon power. Rather, its mysterious language reveals a unique specific purpose when read in conjunction with Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1. The purpose is to clarify that the broad pardon power granted to the president in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 is only limited as to criminal prosecutions (indictments, convictions and punishment) which flow from "Cases of Impeachment" when the Impeached Party has been convicted in the Senate.

The specific limitation of the pardon power that this report has discovered only comes into effect when the House has Impeached and the Senate has convicted. The president definitely has the power to pardon anyone who is Impeached in the House but not convicted in the Senate. Should the Senate follow through on conviction, things could get interesting.

Please make your elected representatives aware of their responsibility to Impeach criminals serving as civil Officers of the United States.

EPILOGUE

Please examine the image at the top of this page carefully. This is a scan of page 8, Section Ten, of The Sunday Star Ledger (a New Jersey newspaper) for July 31, 2005.

Let me draw your attention to the following curiosities:

The bottom half of the page is a history of various secret societies including The Freemasons, Skull and Bones and Opus Dei. But the first paragraph of the article states:

"Whether the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will explode into bitter partisanship or fizzle like wet fire-cracker is anyone's guess. The payoff for Roberts if he survives the grueling process, of course, is membership in one of the nation's most rarefied institutions.

When it comes to tradition and secret rituals, however, the Supreme Court has nothing on these groups."

It then describes the history of the various secret societies.

Why is the unnamed author of this article comparing the United States Supreme Court to secret societies? The Supreme Court operates in full public view. Its members and powers are determined by Constitutional authority. Its decisions are published for all the world to see. If the only purpose of this article was to portray the Supreme Court as a "secret society", the article's purpose is insane.

But when we examine the top part of page 8, the cynical message conveyed becomes clear. Have a look at the top headline:

"A clean slate for ex-cons."

Now look at the type on the document pictured on the top right side of the page:

"Clear Your Record!
(MAKE A FRESH START)
$350
EXPUNGEMENT"

Now look at the signature on the bold face boxed quote in the middle of the top half of the page:

"MARGARET COLGATE LOVE, former pardon attorney for the United States"

Taking all of the inferences listed on this page into consideration, it appears that the fix is in.

A Senator at the confirmation hearings needs to ask Mr. John "I don't recall being an officer of the Federalist Society" Roberts, if he recognizes a Constitutional difference between "Cases of Impeachment" and "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment". The future of our nation may depend on his answer.

By Citizen Spook
citizenspook@hotmail.com

PLEASE REPOST and LINK far and wide....

Impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
for violating the Constitution of the United States

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/impeach_bush.htm

  
APFN MSG BD:  http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html

CLICK: Information

    Wednesday 21 December 2005

    Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in the media have started mentioning the "I" word, or at least the "IO" phrase: impeach or impeachable offense.

    The sudden outbreak of anger or candor - or, some might say, foolishness - has been sparked by the uproar over revelations of a White House approved domestic spying program, with some conservatives joining in the shouting.

    Ron Hutcheson, White House correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers (known as "Hutch" to the president), observed that "some legal experts asserted that Bush broke the law on a scale that could warrant his impeachment." Indeed such talk from legal experts was common in print or on cable news.

    Newsweek online noted a "chorus" of impeachment chat, and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman, declared that Bush opponents are "calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president's dictatorial perfidy. The 'I-word' is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year - much more."

    When chief Washington Post pollster Richard Morin appeared for an online chat, a reader from Naperville, Ill., asked him why the Post hasn't polled on impeachment. "This question makes me mad," Morin replied. When a second participant made the same query, Morin fumed, "Getting madder." A third query brought the response: "Madder still."

    A smattering of polls (some commissioned by partisan groups) has found considerable, if minority, support for impeachment. But Frank Newport, the director of the Gallup Poll, told E&P recently that he would only run a poll on the subject if the idea really started to gain mainstream political traction, and not until then. He noted that he had been besieged with emails calling for such a survey, but felt it was an "organized" action.

    Conservative stalwart Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online takes the talk seriously enough to bother to poke fun at it, practically begging Bush foes to try to impeach him. "The main reason Bush's poll numbers would skyrocket if he were impeached," Goldberg wrote, "is that at the end of the day the American people will support what he did [with the spy program]."

    And the folks at conservative blog RedState.org took issue with Fineman's prediction, noting that for "all his fear mongering" he "fails to note the essential point: the more the Dems mutter 'impeachment' in 2006, the more it helps the GOP, because it just further entrenches the notion that the Dems are out of touch, partisan, and not serious about national security."

    But John Dean, who knows something about these matters, calls Bush "the first President to admit to an impeachable offense." And one of those thoroughly unscientific MSNBC online polls found about 88% backing the idea through late Wednesday.

    On Wednesday, Washington Post blogger/columnist Dan Froomkin, declaring that "The 'I-word' is back," assembled an array of quotes on the subject. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), he pointed out, sent a letter this week to four unidentified presidential scholars, asking whether they think Bush's authorization of warrantless domestic spying amounted to an impeachable offense.

    Todd Gillman wrote in the Dallas Morning News: "Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., suggested that Mr. Bush's actions could justify impeachment." And Froomkin cited Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance law, saying 'When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors."

    When Washington Post pollster Richard Morin finally answered the "I" question in his online chat, he said, "We do not ask about impeachment because it is not a serious option or a topic of considered discussion - witness the fact that no member of congressional Democratic leadership or any of the serious Democratic presidential candidates in '08 are calling for Bush's impeachment. When it is or they are, we will ask about it in our polls."

    Morin complained that he and other pollsters have been the "target of a campaign organized by a Democratic Web site demanding that we ask a question about impeaching Bush in our polls." But Froomkin commented, "there's nothing wrong with asking the question."

    The debate should only grow in 2006. Fineman predicted a dark year ahead: "We are entering a dark time in which the central argument advanced by each party is going to involve accusing the other party of committing what amounts to treason. Democrats will accuse the Bush administration of destroying the Constitution; Republicans will accuse the Dems of destroying our security."

From: truthout.org

    Wednesday 21 December 2005

    Washington - Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter said Wednesday he remains skeptical about a government surveillance program despite an explanation from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

    The two met for an hour Sunday to discuss the rationale for the warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency that President Bush approved without obtaining any court orders.

    "I would summarize it by saying I have grave doubts about his legal conclusion," Specter, R-Pa., said of a meeting with Gonzales, who was confirmed before Specter's committee early this year. "I'm skeptical, but I'm prepared to listen."

    Specter said he expects Gonzales to be the leadoff witness at a hearing on the surveillance, which he said he would like to start next month after confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

    There likely will be a national debate about whether the president really has the kind of power he's been using, said Specter, a five-term senator and former prosecutor.

    "There may be legislation which will come out of it to restrict the president's power," Specter said.

    Specter said he would seek a copy of the resignation letter of U.S. District Judge James Robertson, who stepped down from a special court set up to oversee government surveillance. The Washington Post reported that the resignation stemmed from Robertson's concerns over whether the surveillance was legal. Specter said he wants to meet with Robertson, and may ask him to appear before the committee.

    President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow domestic eavesdropping without court approval first came to light late last week, and he has defended the decision as a matter of protecting national security.

    Specter said the issue isn't one he sought out - that it came up on Friday while he was pushing for passage of the anti-terror Patriot Act.

    "When a cannon hits you between the eyes, you take notice and I was immediately asked what I thought about it and I said, 'Well, it's a matter that requires a hearing,"' Specter said.

    Thursday 22 December 2005

    The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

    Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court.

    "The questions are obvious," said U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah. "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the reliability and credibility of the information we're getting in our court?"

    Such comments underscored the continuing questions among judges about the program, which most of them learned about when it was disclosed last week by the New York Times. On Monday, one of 10 FISA judges, federal Judge James Robertson, submitted his resignation - in protest of the president's action, according to two sources familiar with his decision. He will maintain his position on the U.S. District Court here.

    Other judges contacted yesterday said they do not plan to resign but are seeking more information about the president's initiative. Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who also sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, told fellow FISA court members by e-mail Monday that she is arranging for them to convene in Washington, preferably early next month, for a secret briefing on the program, several judges confirmed yesterday.

    Two intelligence sources familiar with the plan said Kollar-Kotelly expects top-ranking officials from the National Security Agency and the Justice Department to outline the classified program to the members.

    The judges could, depending on their level of satisfaction with the answers, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted, according to government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court. Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court.

    The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information.

    Still, Bush and his advisers have said they need to operate outside the FISA system in order to move quickly against suspected terrorists. In explaining the program, Bush has made the distinction between detecting threats and plots and monitoring likely, known targets, as FISA would allow.

    Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House had tried but failed to find a way.

    One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

    "For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap," said the official. "They couldn't dream one up."

    The NSA program, and the technology on which it is based, makes it impossible to meet that criterion because the program is designed to intercept selected conversations in real time from among an enormous number relayed at any moment through satellites.

    "There is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to note the distinction between the two," Bush said Monday. But he added: "If there is a need based upon evidence, we will take that evidence to a court in order to be able to monitor calls within the United States."

    The American Civil Liberties Union formally requested yesterday that Gonzales appoint an outside special counsel to investigate and prosecute any criminal acts and violations of laws as a result of the spying effort.

    Also yesterday, John D. Negroponte, Bush's director of national intelligence, sent an e-mail to the entire intelligence community defending the program. The politically tinged memo referred to the disclosure as "egregious" and called the program a vital, constitutionally valid tool in the war against al Qaeda.

    Benson said it is too soon for him to judge whether the surveillance program was legal until he hears directly from the government.

    "I need to know more about it to decide whether it was so distasteful," Benson said. "But I wonder: If you've got us here, why didn't you go through us? They've said it's faster [to bypass FISA], but they have emergency authority under FISA, so I don't know."

    As it launched the dramatic change in domestic surveillance policy, the administration chose to secretly brief only the presiding FISA court judges about it. Officials first advised U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, the head of FISA in the fall of 2001, and then Kollar-Kotelly, who replaced him in that position in May 2002. U.S. District Judge George Kazen of the Southern District of Texas said in an interview yesterday that his information about the program has been largely limited to press accounts over the past several days.

    "Why didn't it go through FISA," Kazen asked. "I think those are valid questions. The president at first said he didn't want to talk about it. Now he says, 'You're darn right I did it, and it's completely legal.' I gather he's got lawyers telling him this is legal. I want to hear those arguments." Judge Michael J. Davis of Minnesota said he, too, wants to be sure the secret program did not produce unreliable or legally suspect information that was then used to obtain FISA warrants.

    "I share the other judges' concerns," he said.

    But Judge Malcolm Howard of eastern North Carolina said he tends to think the terrorist threat to the United States is so grave that the president should use every tool available and every ounce of executive power to combat it.

    "I am not overly concerned" about the surveillance program, he said, but "I would welcome hearing more specifics."

      Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

    Thursday 22 December 2005

    The National Security Agency story has pushed military spying on anti-war groups off the front pages, and the Pentagon appears to have seized upon administrative error to explain away its slide into domestic spying.

    The Department of Defense now says that analysts may not have followed the law and its own guidelines that require the purging of information collected on US persons after 90 days. The law states that if no connection is made between named persons and foreign governments or transnational terrorist organizations or illegal activity, US persons have a right to their privacy and information about them must be deleted.

    Thanks to RL, I now know that the database of "suspicious incidents" in the United States first revealed by NBC Nightly News last Tuesday and subject of my blog last week is the Joint Protection Enterprise Network (JPEN) database, an intelligence and law enforcement sharing system managed by the Defense Department's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA).

    What is clear about JPEN is that the military is not inadvertently keeping information on US persons. It is violating the law. And what is more, it even wants to do it more.

    Follow-up reporting on the Pentagon spying story - both by this newspaper and by the New York Times - mistakenly refers to the suspicious incidents database that I obtained for the time period July 2004-May 2005 as the TALON database, for the Threat and Local Observation Notice reporting system.

    TALON, according to the Pentagon, is merely a non-threatening compilation of "unfiltered information."

    The data on incidents is used "to estimate possible threats," DOD says. "It is in effect, the place where DOD initially stores "dots," which if validated, might later be connected before an attack occurs," the department says in a written statement prepared for reporters.

    "Under existing procedures, a "dot" of information that is not validated as threatening must be removed from the TALON system."

    But JPEN is more than just a compilation of TALON's. It is a near real-time sharing system of raw non-validated force protection information among Department of Defense organizations and installations. Feeding into JPEN are intelligence, law enforcement, counterintelligence, and security reports, TALONs as well as other reports.

    JPEN shares this information at all levels, from military police guarding entry gates at military bases to terrorism warning watch standers at the Defense Intelligence Agency. JPEN began as a pilot project in the Washington, D.C. area and was initially fielded in June 2003.

    Under the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the military can maintain information on specific individuals (name of individual or other personal identifiers such as Social Security number or driver's license number) in the JPEN database system for 90 days. JPEN then is supposed to purge all Privacy Act information after 90 days, unless it is part of an ongoing investigation.

    From the beginning of JPEN, system designers have attempted to balance their task of collecting and retaining information of intelligence and warning value with the longstanding "intelligence oversight" and Privacy Act restrictions. According to a JPEN classified briefing obtained by this blogger, the 90-day "data content limit ... creates issues for long-term correlation and analysis."

    In other words, how can the military connect the dots if it is restricted to a 90-day deadline? According to the briefing the NORTHCOM says it will "continue to purge required information IAW [in accordance with] the law" but it is also working "privacy act restrictions with legal office to retain information previously subject to purging."

    Evidently though, the JPEN maintainers didn't abide by the law, and the collectors feeding TALON and other reports into the system overreached in monitoring and retaining information on anti-war and anti-military organizations of no conceivable threat.

    The managers of JPEN are hardly being inadvertent about either the 90-day restriction or the intentional collection of information on US persons. So far, it appears that they have broken the law. And what is more, they are agitating internally to find ways of circumventing the legal restrictions.

    Friday 23 December 2005

    Washington - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito defended the right of government officials to order domestic wiretaps for national security when he worked at the Reagan Justice Department, an echo of President Bush's rationale for spying on US residents in the war on terror.

    Then an assistant to the solicitor general, Alito wrote a 1984 memo that provided insights on his views of government powers and legal recourse - seen now through the prism of Bush's actions - as well as clues to the judge's understanding of how the Supreme Court operates.

    The National Archives released the memo and scores of other documents related to Alito on Friday; the Associated Press had requested the material under the Freedom of Information Act. The memo comes as Bush is under fire for secretly ordering domestic spying of suspected terrorists without a warrant.

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Monday he would ask Alito about the president's authority at confirmation hearings beginning Jan. 9. The memo's release Friday prompted committee Democrats to signal that they will press the conservative jurist about executive powers.

    The memo dealt with whether government officials should have blanket protection from lawsuits when authorizing wiretaps. "I do not question that the attorney general should have this immunity," Alito wrote. "But for tactical reasons, I would not raise the issue here."

    Despite Alito's warning that the government would lose, the Reagan administration took the fight to the Supreme Court in the case of whether Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, could be sued for authorizing a warrantless domestic wiretap to gather information about a suspected terrorist plot.

    The FBI had received information about a conspiracy to destroy utility tunnels in Washington and to kidnap Henry Kissinger, then national security adviser, to protest the Vietnam War.

    In its court brief, the government argued for absolute immunity for the attorney general on matters of national security.

    "The attorney general's vital responsibilities in connection with intelligence gathering and prevention in the field of national security are at least deserving of absolute immunity as routine prosecutorial actions taken either by the attorney general or by subordinate officials.

    "When the attorney general is called upon to take action to protect the security of the nation, he should think only of the national good and not about his pocketbook," the brief said.

    Signing the document was Rex E. Lee, then the solicitor general, officials from the Justice Department and Alito.

    Alito's analysis about the court and the need for an incremental legal strategy proved prescient. The case ultimately led to a 1985 ruling by the Supreme Court that the attorney general and other high level executive officials could be sued for violating people's rights, in the name of national security, with such actions as domestic wiretaps.

    "The danger that high federal officials will disregard constitutional rights in their zeal to protect the national security is sufficiently real to counsel against affording such officials an absolute immunity," the court held.

    However, the court said Mitchell was protected from suit, because when he authorized the wiretap he did not realize his actions violated the Fourth Amendment.

    The decision was consistent with the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in 1972 that it was unconstitutional for the government to conduct wiretaps without court approval despite the Nixon administration's argument that domestic anti-war groups and other radicals were a threat to national security.

    Alito had advised his bosses to appeal the case on narrow procedural grounds but not seek blanket immunity.

    "There are also strong reasons to believe that our chances of success will be greater in future cases," he wrote. He noted that then-Justice William H. Rehnquist would be a key vote and would recuse himself from the Nixon-era case.

    The documents were among 45 released by the National Archives as the holiday weekend approached. A total of 744 pages were made public.

    The White House and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, dismissed any link between the 1984 memo to Bush's authorization of electronic surveillance without a warrant to thwart terrorism.

    "Any connection between Judge Alito's 1984 memorandum and the current discussion of terrorist surveillance by the NSA is a real stretch," Cornyn said in a statement.

    But Democrats seized on the memo and vowed to press Alito on the matter at his confirmation hearings.

    "At a time when the nation is faced with revelations that the administration has been wiretapping American citizens, we find that we have a nominee who believes that officials who order warrantless wiretaps of Americans should be immune from legal accountability," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

    Bush picked Alito to take the Supreme Court seat held by Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring.

    Among the documents released Friday was a June 1985 memo in which Alito said abortion rights should be overturned but recommended a roadmap of dismantling them piece by piece instead of a "frontal assault on Roe v. Wade."

    The June abortion memo contained the same Alito statements as one dated May 30, 1985, which the National Archives released in November - but with a forward note from Reagan administration Solicitor General Charles Fried acknowledging the volatility of the issue and saying it had to be kept quiet.

    "I need hardly say how sensitive this material is, and ask that it have no wider circulation," Fried wrote.

    Alito, a federal appellate court judge, has been seeking to assure senators that he would put his private views aside when it came time to rule on abortion as a justice. O'Connor has been a supporter of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling affirming a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

~~~~~

Hi Tim,

You said PGP will save us? Not from what our NSA sources have told us, and, this data mining was going on well before 911; Rick Doty says all the way back to 1980.. Why didn't they catch those 911 terrorist? From what I've heard, not enough Analyst at NSA and not sharing the Intelligence, we didn't need the Patriot Act .

http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/reports/nsa-mecds.htm


Regards

Robert C

    Saturday 24 December 2005

    Washington - The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.

    The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.

    As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the NSA has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said.

    The government's collection and analysis of phone and Internet traffic have raised questions among some law enforcement and judicial officials familiar with the program. One issue of concern to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has reviewed some separate warrant applications growing out of the NSA's surveillance program, is whether the court has legal authority over calls outside the United States that happen to pass through American-based telephonic "switches," according to officials familiar with the matter.

    "There was a lot of discussion about the switches" in conversations with the court, a Justice Department official said, referring to the gateways through which much of the communications traffic flows. "You're talking about access to such a vast amount of communications, and the question was, How do you minimize something that's on a switch that's carrying such large volumes of traffic? The court was very, very concerned about that."

    Since the disclosure last week of the NSA's domestic surveillance program, President Bush and his senior aides have stressed that his executive order allowing eavesdropping without warrants was limited to the monitoring of international phone and e-mail communications involving people with known links to Al Qaeda.

    What has not been publicly acknowledged is that NSA technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation.

    The current and former government officials who discussed the program were granted anonymity because it remains classified.

    Bush administration officials declined to comment on Friday on the technical aspects of the operation and the NSA's use of broad searches to look for clues on terrorists. Because the program is highly classified, many details of how the NSA is conducting it remain unknown, and members of Congress who have pressed for a full Congressional inquiry say they are eager to learn more about the program's operational details, as well as its legality.

    Officials in the government and the telecommunications industry who have knowledge of parts of the program say the NSA has sought to analyze communications patterns to glean clues from details like who is calling whom, how long a phone call lasts and what time of day it is made, and the origins and destinations of phone calls and e-mail messages. Calls to and from Afghanistan, for instance, are known to have been of particular interest to the NSA since the Sept. 11 attacks, the officials said.

    This so-called "pattern analysis" on calls within the United States would, in many circumstances, require a court warrant if the government wanted to trace who calls whom.

    The use of similar data-mining operations by the Bush administration in other contexts has raised strong objections, most notably in connection with the Total Information Awareness system, developed by the Pentagon for tracking terror suspects, and the Department of Homeland Security's Capps program for screening airline passengers. Both programs were ultimately scrapped after public outcries over possible threats to privacy and civil liberties.

    But the Bush administration regards the NSA's ability to trace and analyze large volumes of data as critical to its expanded mission to detect terrorist plots before they can be carried out, officials familiar with the program say. Administration officials maintain that the system set up by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not give them the speed and flexibility to respond fully to terrorist threats at home.

    A former technology manager at a major telecommunications company said that since the Sept. 11 attacks, the leading companies in the industry have been storing information on calling patterns and giving it to the federal government to aid in tracking possible terrorists.

    "All that data is mined with the cooperation of the government and shared with them, and since 9/11, there's been much more active involvement in that area," said the former manager, a telecomm