Author Topic: One bomb away  (Read 3279 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
One bomb away
« on: September 04, 2007, 10:05:59 AM »

Tuesday September 4, 2007 07:25 EST
Dick Cheney's top aide: "We're one bomb away" from our goal

In October of 2003, Jack Goldsmith -- a right-wing lawyer with radical views of executive power and long-time friend of John Yoo -- was named by the Bush administration to head the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, one of the most influential legal positions in the executive branch. During his tenure, he discovered numerous legal positions which the administration had adopted (many created by Yoo) that he found baseless and even unconscionable -- from torture to detention powers to illegal surveillance -- and he repudiated many of them, thereby repeatedly infuriating the most powerful White House officials, led by Cheney top aide David Addington. As a result, his tenure was extremely brief, and he was gone a mere 9 months after he began.

Goldsmith, now a Harvard Law Professor, has just written a book, to be released this month, criticizing and, in some cases, exposing for the first time, many of Bush's executive power abuses. He is donating all the proceeds from the book to charity to prevent the standard integrity attacks which Bush followers launch at any ex-officials who commit such blasphemy. In a lengthy profile in The New York Times Magazine, Jeffrey Rosen profiles Goldsmith and highlights some of the book's key revelations.

Two revelations in particular are extraordinary and deserve (but are unlikely to receive) intense media coverage. First, it was Goldsmith who first argued that the administration's secret, warrantless surveillance programs were illegal, and it was that conclusion which sparked the now famous refusal of Ashcroft/Comey in early 2004 to certify the program's legality. Goldsmith argued continuously about his conclusion with Addington, and during the course of those arguments, this is what happened:

    [Goldsmith] shared the White House's concern that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act might prevent wiretaps on international calls involving terrorists. But Goldsmith deplored the way the White House tried to fix the problem, which was highly contemptuous of Congress and the courts. "We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court," Goldsmith recalls Addington telling him in February 2004.

Their goal all along was to "get rid of the obnoxious FISA court" entirely, so that they could freely eavesdrop on whomever they wanted with no warrants or oversight of any kind. And here is Dick Cheney's top aide, drooling with anticipation at the prospect of another terrorist attack so that they could seize this power without challenge. Addington views the Next Terrorist Attack as the golden opportunity to seize yet more power. Sitting around the White House dreaming of all the great new powers they will have once the new terrorist attack occurs -- as Addington was doing -- is nothing short of deranged.

Contrary to the claims made by Bush and his followers ever since the NSA scandal arose, their real objective in secretly creating "The Terrorist Surveillance Program" was never to find a narrow means to circumvent FISA when, in those few cases, it impeded necessary eavesdropping. Rather, the goal was to get rid of FISA altogether and return the country to the days when our government could spy on us in total secrecy, with no oversight. Of course, until they could "get rid of" that law altogether -- through the only tactic they know: exploitation of Terrorism -- they simply decided to violate it at will.

More revealing still is Goldsmith's description of how the Bush administration systematically violated one law after the next -- employing tactics that are truly the hallmark of the most lawless third-world dictators:

    In his book, Goldsmith claims that Addington and other top officials treated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act the same way they handled other laws they objected to: "They blew through them in secret based on flimsy legal opinions that they guarded closely so no one could question the legal basis for the operations," he writes.

    Goldsmith's first experienced this extraordinary concealment, or "strict compartmentalization," in late 2003 when, he recalls, Addington angrily denied a request by the N.S.A.'s inspector general to see a copy of the Office of Legal Counsel's legal analysis supporting the secret surveillance program. "Before I arrived in O.L.C., not even N.S.A. lawyers were allowed to see the Justice Department's legal analysis of what N.S.A. was doing," Goldsmith writes.

They literally decided they would break whatever laws they wanted -- one law after the next, in critical areas -- based on patently baseless memos issued by obedient followers like John Yoo. Not only did they do this in complete secrecy from Congress, they refused even to allow Executive Branch officials who were told to follow orders to see the legal basis for what they were told to do. Addington, whom Goldsmith described as "someone who spoke for and acted with the full backing of the powerful vice president," would simply demand compliance with what Cheney wanted. And anyone would objected was subjected to this (emphasis in original):

    Months later, when Goldsmith tried to question another presidential decision, Addington expressed his views even more pointedly. "If you rule that way," Addington exclaimed in disgust, Goldsmith recalls, "the blood of the hundred thousand people who die in the next attack will be on your hands."

While our national media was glorifying the Great Commander-in-Chief and actively disseminating their most manipulative claims and mocking Democrats on the pettiest of grounds (The Serious National Security Grown-ups are in Charge; John Kerry windsurfs! John Edwards loves his hair!), the Bush administration was literally dismantling the rule of law, systematically violating long-standing statutes and treaties at will. We were ruled by a truly lawless government, while our media institutions and political elite sat by meek and respectful.

Perhaps most infuriating is the fact that, as it turns out, violating these laws in secret was not even necessary -- because Congress was, and still is, more than happy to legalize whatever they wanted to do. Almost immediately after the Supreme Court finally imposed some mild limitations on the President's detention and interrogation powers -- first in Hamdi, then in Hamdan -- Congress, as Goldsmith says, "promptly passed a law that gave him everything he asked for, authorizing many aspects of the military commissions that the Supreme Court had struck down."

And the terrorist bomb about which David Addington was fantasizing in order to get rid of FISA was equally unnecessary, since the Democratic Congress, in the face of the types of threats Goldsmith recounts Addington routinely made -- "the blood of the hundred thousand people who die in the next attack will be on your hands" -- just eviscerated the crux of FISA's protections by law. Hence, what began as the administration's illegal and secret abuses have become the legally sanctioned policies of the United States.

It is critical to emphasize that Goldsmith -- like James Comey and John Ashcroft -- is no hero. He is a hard-core right-wing ideologue who continues to support many of the administration's most radical positions, including his view that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorist suspects (the position rejected by Hamdan). And it was Goldsmith who ultimately approved of the modified (and plainly illegal) warrantless eavesdropping program.

Moreover, Goldsmith explains that he had not even intended to address the NSA surveillance program in his book, but changed his mind once he was served with subpoenas by the FBI in connection with the ongoing criminal investigation to find out who the whistleblower was who alerted the country to this illegality -- an investigation which Goldsmith supports. As Goldsmith says: "I'm not a civil libertarian, and what I did wasn't driven by concerns about civil liberties per se."

Goldsmith is commendable only by comparison to the truly extremist and reprehensible likes of Cheney, Addington, Gonzales and Yoo. He is, by and large, a True Believer in the Bush "War on Terror" and in theories designed to expand substantially executive power. That is what makes his revelations all the more credible, and all the more disturbing. What he is describing is a band of deranged and lawless radicals who, during his tenure, ran our government and who, after they forced him out, continue to do so.

But with little meaningful opposition to any of this -- either in the media or in the Congress -- little attention will be paid to these extraordinary revelations, and our government will continue to be shaped in the image of Dick Cheney and David Addington. Now that they have obtained most of their original wish list from a compliant Congress, just imagine what they are dreaming of, the still new unchecked powers which they believe are only "one bomb away."

-- Glenn Greenwald

   http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/04/addington/index.html
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2007, 10:25:50 AM »
Nothing quite as frustrating as worrying about paperwork when you have a fire to put out.

Greenwald wails that BushCo tried to break the system.

The system held.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2007, 10:58:30 AM »
<<The system held. >>

A - It is not "holding" if the very abuses it was designed to prevent have actually occurred with impunity.
B - No worries at all about what happens after the next bomb, apparently.

It's been said before but it bears repeating:  "Terrorists" cannot destroy America.  Only Americans can destroy America.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2007, 10:59:29 AM »
Nothing quite as frustrating as worrying about paperwork when you have a fire to put out.  Greenwald wails that BushCo tried to break the system.  The system held.

Just another example of how Bush is supposedly ramrodding his fascist theocratic agenda down our throats, while were forced to sit back and take it??      ;)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2007, 11:02:55 AM »
Quote
It's been said before but it bears repeating:  "Terrorists" cannot destroy America.  Only Americans can destroy America.

The constitution is not a suicide pact.

The pendulum always rights itself.

The system held.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2007, 11:16:26 AM »
Denmark -- The Next Target

Police in Denmark have arrested eight suspected al-Qaeda terrorists in Copenhagen as they have apparently foiled a terrorist attack. The men, ages 18 to 29, were found in raids at eleven addresses -- and authorities found more than just the men:

    Danish police have arrested eight people with alleged links to al-Qaeda on suspicion of planning a bomb attack.

    The eight suspects arrested late on Monday in Copenhagen form part of a terror cell with links to a senior al-Qaeda figure, police said.

    The suspects, aged between 19 and 29, were of Afghan, Pakistani, Somali and Turkish origin, police said.

Police report that the men had been under surveillance for quite some time. They had begun producing an "unstable explosive" in a densely-populated area in preparation for an attack. They had lived in immigrant neighborhoods, but six of the eight have Danish citizenship.

It's not the first time Denmark has discovered plots against their people. Last year they arrested four men on suspicion of plotting terrorist attacks; that trial starts tomorrow. The coincidence of this arrest and the trial seems a little hard to swallow. If these terrorists had already started building their bomb, the attack may have been intended to either disrupt the trial or perhaps free the defendants, although that may have been a long shot.

Why Denmark? The Danes belong to the Coalition fighting in Iraq, but that's probably a secondary issue. The Prophet cartoons -- which depicted Mohammed in a critical fashion -- were first published by Danish newspapers, and the Muslim world went nuts over the images. Hundreds of thousands protested, several people were murdered, and the radicals swore revenge. Some of them took it seriously.

Congratulations to Denmark for stopping these terrorists before they could attack. Has anyone noticed that the West's intel has improved substantially over the last few years? Perhaps would-be terrorists might want to consider why their cells keep getting exposed.


http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/012467.php

Mr_Perceptive

  • Guest
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2007, 11:25:18 AM »
The Lowlanders have a real problem with non-citizens as does Great Britain. A friend of mine in the Dutch military is scared to death what is happening in this regard there. He says they just let in anyone and everyone, without regard to what the immigrants could offer the country in terms of skills, etc. I have yet to understand why nations do this other than that good ole Politics comes into play. There are  a few good reasons surrounding family issues, but other than that this simple question perhaps needs to be asked: "What can (the immigrant) do for me (the nation)?

It should be interesting to see how this plays out.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2007, 11:27:29 AM by Mr_Perceptive »

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2007, 11:31:34 AM »
<<Just another example of how Bush is supposedly ramrodding his fascist theocratic agenda down our throats, while were forced to sit back and take it??>>

I guess so, but why would you say "supposedly" when the article is fairly clear that the abuses did occur?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2007, 11:58:07 AM »
<<Just another example of how Bush is supposedly ramrodding his fascist theocratic agenda down our throats, while were forced to sit back and take it??>>

I guess so, but why would you say "supposedly" when the article is fairly clear that the abuses did occur?

Because we keep getting told how our nation has become some form of nonsensical Fascist-like dictatorship, yet everytime anyone actually looks around, there are no concentration camps, no dissenters have been rounded up, no marshall law has been implimented, no media has been prevented from pushing their own propoganda, etc., etc., etc.  In short NOTHING has occured to validate the asanine mindset that we're becoming some Fascist nazi-like Government state.  That's why one would say "supposedly"
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2007, 12:26:00 PM »
<<there are no concentration camps, no dissenters have been rounded up, no marshall law has been implimented, no media has been prevented from pushing their own propoganda, etc., etc., etc.  In short NOTHING has occured to validate the asanine mindset that we're becoming some Fascist nazi-like Government state.  That's why one would say "supposedly">>

I guess in your view of things, there's no reason for alarm until you actually reach the stage of full-blown fascism with all of its accoutrements.  All 'er nuthin.  Till the old swastika is flying over the White House, there is no cause for alarm.   No such thing as steps along the way.

There are no concentration camps, but there is the naval brig in North Carolina where Jose Padillo was held for three years incommunicado and interrogated using methods that are still secret today; no media has been rounded up but demonstrators have been penned up out of sight of the politicians they were demonstrating against, phones of citizens have been tapped, patriotism of dissenters impugned by the highest elected officials and a legislative framework has been set up whereby all of the things you say have not happened could happen.   The "President" of the U.S.A. has reserved for himself the right to define "torture."

The background has been set up.  The time to make use of it has not yet arrived.  What part of "One Bomb Away" do you not understand?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2007, 01:28:30 PM »
<<there are no concentration camps, no dissenters have been rounded up, no marshall law has been implimented, no media has been prevented from pushing their own propoganda, etc., etc., etc.  In short NOTHING has occured to validate the asanine mindset that we're becoming some Fascist nazi-like Government state.  That's why one would say "supposedly">>

I guess in your view of things, there's no reason for alarm until you actually reach the stage of full-blown fascism with all of its accoutrements.  All 'er nuthin.  Till the old swastika is flying over the White House, there is no cause for alarm.   

Actually for my "alarm", I need to see an EFFORT to impliment fascist policy, not simply hyperbolic completely meritless cries of such, from the same folks that can't see Bush being able to do anything right, including breathe & blink.  You might recall that this is a Democratic society.  IF Bush were this evil sinister Hitler wanna-be, you keep implying he is, and the GOP this evil corporate Christian beholden corrupt party, he'd use the power he had (especially when the GOP was also in control of congress, and had this supposedly RW court that supposedly put him into office), to impliment as many of these fascist policies as possible into play, in order to perpetuate that power.  He wouldn't do it "incrimentally", since the voters wouldn't stand for it, myself included.  But your blinders are so thick with Bush hatred, and your version of reality so twisted, everything has to be rationalized to fit your templates.  So yea, no such things as "steps along the way", when there's not even 1 step inplace, 7yrs later.

« Last Edit: September 04, 2007, 02:25:58 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Mr_Perceptive

  • Guest
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2007, 01:50:09 PM »
I must agree with Sirs here. One Administration, in itself, is NOT enough to usher in Fascism or any serious variant thereof. It should be noted that most if not all Adminsitrations follow an ebb and flow here and I would guess that if you looked at this issue, over time, no discernible pattern would be discerned (sorry, just finished my other Master's not longer ago and it sometimes creeps in). Actions such as the Patriot Act, while appearing to be "Fascist" in design, may actually just be a knee-jerk reaction to 9-11 and NOT a Plan per se or a definite pattern.

That being said, I do indeed agree on the need for more internal security for the short term, this period of time to be delineated by the absence of apparnet increased terrorist activity. After a suitable time has elapsed and this criteria being met, then loosing prohibitions on personal conduct can be envisioned and even welcomed.

(Not bad for an old Master Gunny....lol).
« Last Edit: September 07, 2007, 05:01:12 PM by Mr_Perceptive »

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2007, 05:26:52 PM »
The Dutch let anyone in because they are a member of the EC, and once a person has entered any part of the EC, he or she is free to cross into any other EC member nation. There are no customs, no immigration stops between Spain and France, France and Belgium, Belgium and the Netherlands. And on to Germany, Denmark and Finland.

Of course, gaining access to Spain or Greece, Malta or Italy is quite difficult.

This has been the situation since the mid 1990's. How strange that you would be so unperceptive as not to know this.

Deaths due to terrorism are far fewer than those due to traffic, by the way.

 
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2007, 05:32:33 PM »
...when the article is fairly clear that the abuses did occur?


Oh?   Who got his phone tapped?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: One bomb away
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2007, 01:15:44 AM »
<<Oh?   Who got his phone tapped?>>

Guess we'll have to wait for Goldsmith's book to find out:

<<Goldsmith, now a Harvard Law Professor, has just written a book, to be released this month, criticizing and, in some cases, exposing for the first time, many of Bush's executive power abuses. He is donating all the proceeds from the book to charity to prevent the standard integrity attacks which Bush followers launch at any ex-officials who commit such blasphemy. In a lengthy profile in The New York Times Magazine, Jeffrey Rosen profiles Goldsmith and highlights some of the book's key revelations.>>

sirs argues that if Bush wanted to bring in a fascist state, he could have gone a lot further in that direction.  Wouldn't have "held back" as it were.  I don't agree.  I don't think Bush formulates any of this Patriot Act crap, there are bigger people than Bush, people who have a longer perspective, and they are pretty much attuned to how much they, or a pliant administration, can get away with at any particular time.  They are content to plan for longer periods of time than four-year or eight-year administrations.  They know what building blocks to lay down from A to Z, and they also know that they can't get it done all at once.  Certainly the Bush administration has made giant strides towards a lawless, fascist state and the fact that they didn't go all-out and proclaim a dictatorship does not negate by one bit the progress they have made for fascism.

It stands to reason that in a country whose traditions of freedom and liberty go back over two hundred years, nobody is going to switch it to fascism overnight.