At Power Line, John Hinderaker says that, contrary to Barack Obama’s repeated statements that the free world is less safe because of the Bush administration’s national security policies, the evidence indicates otherwise.  Likewise, Fareed Zakaria writes at Newsweek that terrorist attacks are down by nearly two-thirds in the last 4 years.  Are we in fact safer than Mr. Obama would have us believe?

(more…)

Glen Greenwald’s latest piece on immunity for telecom companies that helped the government in the aftermath of 9/11 is one worth reading.  Fundamentally the issue hasn’t changed - telecoms that cooperated with the Bush administration deserve protection as is currently given - but Glen’s analysis of their contributions to lobbying firms and the money’s subsequent flow to the coffers of various politicians is fascinating and sickening at the same time.

(more…)

When I was at the Houston Energy Summit earlier this year the theme that ran the length and breadth of every presentation made was that of energy security.  While the oil supply and pricing problems I’ve written about recently have not gone unnoticed in Congress, no concrete action has emerged from that body. Worse, Tom Friedman says that President Bush has not done any better.

(more…)

You know, there was a time when Presidents lied about this kind of thing. Plausible deniability it’s called, if I’m not mistaken. Not so George W. Bush, the man knows no shame when it comes to torture: (more…)

The House of Representatives today voted to pass a Democratic plan to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, defying President Bush’s demand that telecom companies that cooperated with the Justice Department be granted immunity for their actions.

As I’ve said repeatedly, it makes no sense to penalize the telecoms for doing what they thought they had to do to protect our nation while allowing the driving force behind the information gathering process to escape punishment. 

The Democratic plan would allow telecommunications companies to be sued for their role in the administration’s much-disputed warrantless surveillance program.

(more…)

ABC’s Justin Rood reports that John Brennan, Barack Obama’s intelligence adviser, has gone on-record as being strongly in favor of granting immunity to telecoms that provided information to the national security apparatus in advance of a new law granting them that authority.

“I do believe strongly that [telecoms] should be granted that immunity,” former CIA official John Brennan told National Journal reporter Shane Harris in the interview.  “They were told to [cooperate] by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context.”

(more…)

I don’t often agree with the aims of the ACLU, but I think that filing a suit against the Bush administration’s use of “unapproved”, to put it gently, wiretapping was a good thing.  Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined the opportunity to hear the case.

Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU:

“Although we are deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s refusal to review this case, it is worth noting that today’s action says nothing about the case’s merits and does not suggest in any way an endorsement of the lower court’s decision. The court’s unwillingness to act makes it even more important that Congress insist on legislative safeguards that will protect civil liberties without jeopardizing national security.”

(more…)

Glen Greenwald writes:

The Senate today — led by Jay Rockefeller, enabled by Harry Reid, and with the active support of at least 12 (and probably more) Democrats, in conjunction with an as-always lockstep GOP caucus — will vote to legalize warrantless spying on the telephone calls and emails of Americans, and will also provide full retroactive amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms

Despite what Glen says, I think this is the correct response from the Senate as regards the telecom companies.  Hopefully the House will follow along soon.

(more…)

The WaPo reports that a U.S. District court ruled earlier today that two provisions of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional because warrants issued under FISA may not demonstrate probable cause:

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, “now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”

…

“For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law _ with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised,” she [Judge Aiken] wrote.

While this decision will not make the Bush administration or security hawks happy I believe that it is the correct ruling. (more…)

From Reuters:

President George W. Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to expand the government’s domestic spying powers permanently or risk leaving the country vulnerable to another terrorist attack.

The Democratic-led Congress in August temporarily expanded the Bush administration’s authority to monitor phone calls, e-mails and other electronic communications between individuals in the United States and someone overseas suspected of terrorism ties, without obtaining court approval.

…

“Without these tools it’ll be harder to figure out what our enemies are doing to train, recruit and infiltrate operatives into America,” Bush said during a visit to the National Security Agency, which conducts surveillance of electronic communications on targets around the world.

“Without these tools, our country will be much more vulnerable to attack,” Bush added.

That is probably true, especially given America’s lax attitude about closing its borders.  But why does the president’s authority need to be made permanent now, only weeks after having been granted on a temporary basis?

One theory is that Bush and Cheney, with emphasis on the latter, have actively sought to expand the presidency’s power in ways that the Constitution never intended.

Whether that’s true or not I think this is one place to draw the line.  There is no reason to make the Bush administration’s domestic espionage program permanent at this time.

Cross-posted at Black Shards.

The New York Times reports that Senator Hillary Clinton has come under attack “for saying that America is safer now than before 9/11.”

The Democratic theme is, of course, that Bush’s policies have made America less safe. Clinton, however, broke with that during the debate last Sunday.

Her advisers now felt compelled to explain that Clinton “was referring to domestic security efforts since Sept. 11, 2001, and not to the consequences of the war in Iraq or President Bush’s foreign policy.”

Too little too late:

Yet rival Democratic campaigns, arguing that the war in Iraq has harmed security in America by breeding terrorists, are using the remark to highlight differences with her on the issue of the ability to be commander in chief, which political analysts view as a threshold issue for any woman running for president.

The campaign of her other chief rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, sent supporters and reporters a memorandum on Monday titled “America Is Not Safer Since 9/11,” which cited research from the State Department and other groups that described terrorism as an accelerating threat. Advisers to other candidates, meanwhile, argued yesterday that Mrs. Clinton might be misjudging Democratic primary voters, who are loath to credit the Bush administration with much of anything.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. If Obama chooses to openly attack Clinton, he can expect Clinton to strike back whenever and wherever she can.

Clinton can, of course, defend her remark. Campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson said: “I think the vast majority of Democratic primary voters, and Americans, would agree with Senator Clinton. I think most Americans, for instance, would think that air travel is safer today than on Sept. 10.”

It is difficult to argue with that.

Rand Beers, who was an adviser on the Democratic presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry in 2004, explained: “Hillary’s comment is a pretty centrist position, because I think the public is divided between giving the president credit for some steps toward safety, and being very critical of him. How you talk about the issue is really a cup-half-full versus cup-half-empty choice.”

This might hurt Hillary with the ‘liberal base’ of the DP, but I think that, overall, he attitide is the right one: Bush has been (and still is) a terrible president, but he certainly did do some good things. America is in some ways most certainly safer now than it was in 2001, before 9/11.

At Raw Story:

Due to its increasing practice of contracting out to private firms and agencies, the U.S. government is quickly losing its expertise and competence in vital national security and defense programs, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

“Since the 2001 terrorist attacks and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the federal government’s demand for complex technology has soared,” writes by Bernard Wysocki, Jr. for the Journal. “But Washington often doesn’t have the expertise to take on new high-tech projects, or the staff to oversee them.

“As a result,” he continues, “officials are increasingly turning to contractors, in particular the hundreds of companies in Tysons Corner and the surrounding Fairfax County that operate some of the government’s most sensitive and important undertakings.”

Now, I’m all in favor of the free market generally, but I do not consider this to be a good development. If I were American I would politely demand of my leaders to stop this ASAP.