Oct 11, 2007 at 4:54 PM by Political Chase
GOP Members of Congress may be worthless when it comes to running the United States government, but they appear to be quite prescient when it comes to determining their reelection factor for 2008.
Roll Call (subscription) is reporting that Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH), after serving 18 terms, is expected to announce his retirement possibly as soon as tomorrow. Given Regula’s age (will be 83 in December), his decision is not suspect, however I doubt he will have trouble finding enough people for a foursome at the country club next Spring.
Who is his likely successor? God forbid, another terrorist-sympathizing, doesn’t-support-the-troops, tax-and-spend Democrat.
Regula’s northeast Ohio district is considered a prime pickup opportunity for Democrats in an open-seat scenario. President Bush carried the district with 54 percent of the vote in 2004, but Democrats are high on their candidate, state Sen. John Boccieri.
Republican state Sens. Kirk Schuring and Ron Amstutz have expressed interest in running for Regula’s seat if the Congressman retires. Ashland County Commissioner Matt Miller, who lost to Regula in the 2006 Republican primary, already is running.
Oct 11, 2007 at 1:35 PM by Political Chase
After a markup session yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee passed the RESTORE Act with (The Responsible Electronic Surveillance that is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007) after incorporating three amendments submitted during the markup session. Overall, the changes made yesterday do not drastically alter the overall provisions of the bill as introduced on October 9 (summary, full text).
Following are summaries of the three amendments and their respective sponsor(s). I am almost certain the Jackson-Lee and Scott amendments were limited to wordsmithing. For example adding the modifier “significant” to the word “purpose.” I do not have any information on the Nadler amendment at this time beyond the summary provided below.
Jackson-Lee (TX): An amendment to clarify the bill’s language and prevent “reverse targeting” by requiring the Administration to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a “significant purpose of an acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be located in the United States” rather than waiting until said person formally becomes a target.
Nadler (NY): An amendment to improve court oversight over the government’s compliance with the FISA Court’s orders by requiring the court to assess compliance with its orders as opposed to merely authorizing it to do so and by removing limitations on its review.
Scott (VA): An amendment to the bill’s auditing and reporting requirements. The current standard is that acquisition must be with the “significant purpose” of gathering foreign intelligence. The amendment seeks to obtain information about what additional purposes for which the government may be collecting.
Given the significance of this bill, a comparative review of the current and proposed legislation may be helpful, but first let’s take a moment to summarize the evolution of the surveillance bills for clarity.
FISA —> PAA —> RESTORE Act
The first post-Watergate intelligence surveillance statue, FISA, was passed in 1978 and has been modified numerous times over the years. In general terms, the statute and applicable revisions have continued to be commonly referred to as FISA. In August of this year, immediately prior to the summer recess, Congress acquiesced to the Bush-Cheney administration’s fabricated terror threat and chest-pounding to pass the Protect America Act (PAA), a temporary law, which gave Bush carte-blanche to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on anybody, anywhere, void of any oversight, controls, or regulations. In some regards, one could easily argue he had been doing it for six years and had no intentions of changing, so what difference did it really make. A terrible argument, but unfortunately realistic.
The PAA superceded FISA’s specifications and regulations, therefore, what is actually being addressed today via the RESTORE Act are the provisions of the PAA. Consequently, the matrix below provides a comparison between the current law, PAA, and the proposed legislation, the RESTORE Act.
The RESTORE Act (HR 3773) vs. the PAA
| RESTORE Act of 2007 |
Protect America Act |
| Prohibits warrantless surveillance of Americans. Requires a Court Order before targeting Americans’ phone calls or email. |
Contains language that could authorize warrantless surveillance of Americans’ homes, offices, medical records, and phone records. |
| Requires an individual finding of probable cause before conducting surveillance on Americans who are abroad (soldiers, travelers, etc.). |
Permits warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans abroad without probable cause. |
| Clarifies that no Court Order is required for surveillance of conversations where both ends are foreign. |
Does not address this issue. |
| Grants the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence authority to apply to the FISA Court for an order authorizing electronic surveillance of multiple foreign targets. The FISA Court must review the guidelines and procedures for this surveillance. |
FISA Court’s review of procedures is only after-the-fact. FISA Court is relegated to a “rubber stamp” because it may only overturn the surveillance procedures if they are “clearly erroneous.” |
| FISA Court must approve minimization procedures. |
No FISA Court review of minimization procedures allowed. |
| Mandates quarterly audits by the Justice Department Inspector General (DOJ IG) on communications collected under this authority and the number of U.S. persons identified in intelligence reports disseminated pursuant to this collection. These audits would be provided to the FISA Court and to Congress (Intelligence and Judiciary Committees). Mandates an IG audit of non-compliance by intelligence agencies.
Mandates an IG audit of non-compliance by intelligence agencies.
Requires the DOJ IG to conduct an audit of the Administration’s warrantless surveillance programs – to include providing authorizations and legal memoranda to Congress. |
Only authorizes an audit of non-compliance by intelligence agencies. |
| Authorizes the FISA Court, at its discretion, to review applications and other matters as a panel (en banc). |
No provision for en banc review |
| Requires the government to submit applications before conducting surveillance (but provides for surveillance to begin immediately in an emergency). |
Allows the government to conduct surveillance for 120 days before procedures must be filed with the FISA Court. |
| Narrows the scope of this new authority to allow surveillance on terrorism and other threats to national security. |
Allows warrantless surveillance to collect any type of intelligence, to include information about trade negotiations. |
| Requires the government to establish a record-keeping system to track instances where information identifying U.S. persons is disseminated. |
No such record keeping required. |
On a side note, last night, or probably better stated, early this morning, I fired off a letter about the proposed FISA changes to my respective Members of Congress. In addition to blasting the Bush-Cheney administration for its relentless lawbreaking, I believe I made it clear that I was not pleased with the attitude Congress is assuming with this bill in particular, as well as their overall complacent posture. That’s a bit ironic isn’t it? What kind of posture do invertebrates have? Well, at minimum we know they can’t qualify for biped status.
If you have not contacted your Senators or Representative about this issue (and hopefully others), and don’t have time to compose a personal letter, you are welcome to use mine as a template. Of course, the “template” is complete — all the hyperbole, over-the-top rhetoric, and requisite derriere-kissing a wingnut could possibly need.
The letter I have provided is addressed to a Representative, which can easily be modified slightly to accommodate Senators.
Download the letter here (pdf).
Oct 11, 2007 at 9:44 AM by Political Chase
FYI - Nancy Pelosi will hold a press conference at approximately 11:15 A.M. ET today. The briefing will be broadcast live on C-SPAN3. I haven’t seen anything indicating so, but it may also be carried on the cable news networks (e.g., MSNBC, CNN)
Oct 11, 2007 at 7:36 AM by Political Chase
In an interview with the BBC yesterday, former President Jimmy Carter launched a scathing attack on the Bush administration, and Dick Cheney in particular. When asked about the conflict between Cheney and Condoleezza Rice over Israel’s attack on Syria, Carter pounced on Cheney’s long-standing militant position, the countless mistakes Cheney has made, draft-dodging, and Cheney’s continuing delusions about Iraq.
Partial Transcript:
BBC: There was a report in the New York Times today that said there was a division within the administration, once again between Dick Cheney, the Vice president, and Condoleezza Rice, about how Syria should be engaged — this is following the recent Israeli air strike against a Syrian target.
Intelligence reports say that there was some nascent nuclear activity there, perhaps imported from NK, in that particular building. The Syrians deny it. Condoleezza Rice thinks one should continue along diplomatic track. Dick Cheney says its time for preemptive strikes, like the ones that we’ve seen. Where do you stand?
CARTER: As usual, Dick Cheney is wrong.
He’s a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world. And, here he’s trying again to promote what might very well be a counterproductive and catastrophic military adventure.
I’m filled with admiration for Condoleezza Rice in standing up to him, which she did even when she was in the White House under President George W. Bush. Now, Secretary of State, her influence is obviously greater than it was then, and I hope she prevails.
BBC: You don’t mince your words on Dick Cheney do you?
CARTER: Well, you know he’s been a disaster for our country. I think he’s been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he’s prevailed.
It was one of his main commitments was to go into Iraq under false pretenses, and he still maintains those false pretenses are accurate. He still maintains that somehow Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack. He still maintains that Iraq somehow or another had weapons of mass destruction - claims that have been disproven [sic] by all reasonable sources.
Give ‘em hell Jimmy. The video is available here.
Oct 11, 2007 at 5:31 AM by Political Chase
Maybe it’s due to the late hour or the fact that I’ve been running well below par physically for the past several days, but I’m having trouble grasping what the real substance is in a piece the Times has headlined today. The piece is about the alleged advantages of shuffling the Marines and the Army around from their current positions in Iraq and Afghanistan. My best guesses now are: (1) the changes are strategic, but more realistically administrative shuffling due to a new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; (2) a tactical shell game to obfuscate the number of troops in Iraq; (3) or a more sinister plot to enhance flank positions around Iran. Iran is directly between Iraq (east of Iraq) and Afghanistan (west of Afghanistan). See a map here.
There is another possible scenario — positioning more troops in Afghanistan to support an escalated effort to attack al-Qaeda along the Afghan-Pakistani border. President Bush actually focusing on Public Enemy No. 1? That makes too much sense and thereby could not possibly coexist in George Bush’s strategy to dominating the world. There is too much oil in Iran and Iraq for the Decider to be distracted with less trivial items such as Osama bin Laden.
Summarizing, the Marines have about 25,000 troops in Iraq (current total U.S. troops = 160,000) and none in Afghanistan (current total U.S. troops = 26,000). The idea is to move many, if not all, redeploy the Marine troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and maybe move the existing troops in Afghanistan (Army & Air Force) to Iraq, although that’s not specifically stated in the piece. According to the Times, the Marines are self-sustaining (air, ground, logistics, support, etc.), whereas the Army is co-dependent on other branches of the military for air support, logistics, etc.
The Marines are reportedly pressing for the pea-shell-game-move, but it is “still under review.” Those supporting the change (no clear buy-in from the Army yet), have said the “realignment could allow the Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces.”
Oddly enough, in one paragraph of the piece there is an implication Defense Secretary Gates and other high military muckity-mucks may be supportive of the move and discussed the plan “in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders.” However, a few paragraphs later a somewhat contrasting statement is made.
Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have not spoken publicly about the Marine concept, and aides to both officials said no formal proposal had been presented by the Marines. But the idea has been the focus of intense discussions between senior Marine Corps officers and other officials within the Defense Department.
Further confusing the matter, the Times stirs the mix with these statements regarding Gates, his knowledge, and what has been presented.
The Marine Corps concept was raised last week during a Defense Senior Leadership Conference convened by Mr. Gates just hours after Admiral Mullen was sworn in as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
During that session, the idea of assigning the Afghan mission to the Marines was described by Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant. Details of the discussion were provided by military officers and Pentagon civilian officials briefed on the session and who requested anonymity to summarize portions of the private talks.
I presume that is more detail on the earlier statement about a meeting on the proposed changes that was “convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders.” The salient point may be that the meeting was called by Gates “just hours after” Mullen, the new Chairman of the JCS was sworn in.
OK, so maybe it’s just a bit of administrative shuffling due to Gen. Peter Pace’s demise and the subsequent rise of Mullen, but if that’s the case, it seems quite weak for a top of the fold story.
There is a lot of fudging with respect to what Gates and other high muckity-mucks are doing, have been told, various meetings being called, and implicit approvals accompanied by somewhat conflicting denials. I’m a cynic, therefore I don’t put much credence to the administrative shuffle notion. There is one passage that may support it, but it’s far too ambiguous to limit it’s scope to administrative shuffle.
[T]he idea represents the first tangible new thinking to emerge since the White House last month endorsed a plan to begin gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq, but also signals that American forces likely will be in Iraq for years to come.
What do you think?
