Letters to the Editor
Jim White
Published Letters: 1447 Editor's Choice: 16
-
One last point
[Read the article: Forcing Larry Craig's resignation while embracing David Vitter]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The last sentence in the long quote "And believing that one has never made a mistake is the mark of a deluded man, not a man of faith", although penned by Meyers in his criticism of Bush, is equally apt in discussing Craig and his refusal to face up to his behavior.
[Guess this counts as another vote for Salon allowing posts to be edited in the first few minutes after going up.]
-
Congress isn't waiting!
[Read the article: Warrantless surveillance and the new Coretta Scott King disclosures]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn,
I think Congress intends to make just the stand you are calling for in these paragraphs:
What these latest revelations about Coretta Scott King reveal is that it is not a hard case to make that we do not trust our government to spy on us without oversight. As is typically true, if the Democrats actually tried to make that case, rather than run from the debate and hope it disappears as quickly as possible, even more Americans would understand the need for oversight.
That is what a party does when it actually stands for something and believes in something -- it makes its case to the American public. If they are actually interested in restoring FISA safeguards and undoing the damage they just did once the six-month sunset provision elapses -- and that is a big "if" -- Democrats should try that.
In fact, they aren't planning on waiting until the revision expires. Pelosi announced very quickly after the early August cave-in and called for immediate action after Congress returns. Conyers is following through with hearings beginning Wednesday. I think the overwhelming response (wasn't there something about hundreds of thousands of emails to Pelosi?) has Pelosi and Conyers thinking that restoring true oversight is politically possible. Of course, as you point out, it has been logically, legally and morally required from the outset of the Bush abuses.
From Conyers' website:
For Immediate Release
Contact: Jonathan Godfrey
August 29, 2007
Melanie Roussell
(Washington, DC)- Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) announced that the committee will hold a hearing next week titled, "Warrantless Surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): The Role of Checks and Balances in Protecting Americans’ Privacy Rights." The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 5, at 10:15 a.m. in room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building.
At House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) request, Conyers and Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvestre Reyes (D-TX) vowed to revisit the issue upon Congress' return.
-
do these additional powers really help?
[Read the article: Warrantless surveillance and the new Coretta Scott King disclosures]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]scathew,
Let's see what happens in the unfolding case of the telephone extortion threats to large stores. The latest info seems to be zeroing in on Portugal as the source of the activity.
Much of what has been involved in the FISA discussion is active here: telephone calls from abroad coming into the United States with WMD (bombs) actually being discussed, clearly illegal activity (that obviously will be called terrorism if eavesdropping is involved in solving the case) and international wire transfers of money associated with criminal activity.
Of course it's too early to tell whether this is simple criminal activity, a probe of capability by actual terrorists or something contrived to illustrate the value of this glorious system.
My money is on a simple criminal group that will be found and brought to justice by conventional police work, but I think it is likely that the situation will be used as an example, with unverifiable claims, by both sides in the argument. Further, my prejudice is that a system that truly worked with the capabilities the government believes that it is building would have detected and shut down this operation before it achieved the number of "attacks" (fifteen stores in eleven states) already carried out. Link:http://www.kptv.com/news/14010212/detail.html
-
Re: Update
[Read the article: Warrantless surveillance and the new Coretta Scott King disclosures]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree that total capitulation on the part of the investigations would be an abject failure. However, there is this statement that Leahy put out yesterday:
I am pleased that Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine will look into my concerns about potentially false, misleading or inappropriate testimony by the Attorney General. I look forward to the Inspector General's findings on the unprecedented firings of nine United States Attorneys, the improper political hiring of career officials within the Justice Department, the misuse of National Security Letters, and the efforts to bypass the Department's finding that a warrantless surveillance program was without legal basis. These actions have eroded the public's trust and undermined morale within our justice system, from the top ranks to the cop on the beat. The current Attorney General is leaving, but these questions remain. It is appropriate that the Inspector General will examine whether the Attorney General was honest with this and other Congressional committees about these crucial issues. His investigations can help restore independence and accountability, which have been sorely lacking at the Justice Department.
Link: http://tinyurl.com/28caew
If the nature of the deal is that a truly acceptable, independent AG will be nominated AND the Inspector General investigation continues on all fronts, that might not be such a bad idea. Of course, if the new AG then squashes the investigations, the deal would be off and action would be reinstated.
I know it's a stretch, but a real internal investigation that then removed improperly hired career individuals could be achieved faster, and more completely, than action dictated by Congress. It would have the further value of showing the DOJ cleaning itself up and restoring the rule of law and the Constitution. Likewise, a finding by the Ispector General leading to indictment of Gonzles would go a long way toward restoring "independence and accountability."
Of course, it will take courage and resolve on the part of the Democrats to enforce such a deal, if that is what is happening. As most of you are pointing out here, there is little reason to hold out such hope.