![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Vice President Cheney says that the investigation into Attorney General Gonzales is a "bit of a witch hunt."(1) That was after White House mouthpiece Tony Snow:
"Mr. Snow said, in effect, that Mr. Gonzales had been constrained in what he could say because there was a danger he would divulge classified material. 'I understand it's difficult to parse, because what you have involved here are matters of classification,' Mr. Snow said. 'Sometimes it's going to lead people to talk very carefully, and there’s going to be plenty of room for interpretation or conclusion."(2)So perhaps MIM better study more closely. Perhaps we misinterpreted who has been doing what.
Cheney is also in the news for admitting that his 2005 prediction regarding the insurgency in Iraq was wrong.
"I thought there were a series of these milestones that would in fact undermine the insurgency and make it less than it was at that point. That clearly didn't happen. I think the insurgency turned out to be more robust."(3)Such a concession to reality--what next secular humynism, Cheney?
The problem facing the Senate is that Gonzales's testimony is empty for classification reasons and may contradict itself. It is easy to spin what is said in public and leave the appearance that the executive branch hardly does anything except against people with Al- Qaeda on the other end of the line.
On the other hand, even Republicans do not trust Gonzales, so having him speak behind closed doors to senators, without being under oath may seem meaningless. This comes down to a question of who is implementing the laws, given that there is support for repression.
The FISA court established by the 1978 law has the following statistics: "From 1979 through 2004, the NSA granted 18,761 warrants and rejected five. In 2004, 1,754 warrants were approved."(4)
In this situation the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell got it right when he said:
"'This is the only aspect of the NSA activities that can be discussed publicly because it is the only aspect of those various activities whose existence has been officially acknowledged,' he wrote."(5)So there is much more going on and therefore it can be hard to follow Gonzales's vacuous testimony.
MIM will study the matter further.
On another question, House Republicans went on the offensive by seeking to close "loopholes" in the FISA law. The FISA law among other things mentions specific wiretapping technologies for use. The Republicans and Democrats both have a common interest in denying that past surveillance was outside of FISA law. A true FISA technology scandal would also reflect on Bill Clinton, so it stands to reason the public is not going to hear about that. The Libertarians and Greens should bitch.
The current controversy over FISA and the Patriot Act that incorporates should not have much to do with technology; although, the intention of the House Republicans may be to say what was going through Bush's mind when he took up secret surveillance. Once he took up the secret surveillance with NSA, he could ignore technology questions and other legal restrictions regarding spying on Amerikans.
Senator Leahy has said he will cooperate with the president on improving FISA. MIM would remind readers that Hillary Clinton voted for the Patriot Act both times it came up, once in 2001 and once in 2006.(6) Candidate for president John Edwards also says that he will merely "fix the Patriot Act."(7) Candidate Obama likewise worked for a "fix" of the "Patriot Act" instead of a repeal.(8) What these politicians do is position themselves for packaging and sale. There was no Howard Dean position against the "Patriot Act." We're not going to see something where Bush gets FISA improvements, but the Patriot Act gets flushed.
Accurate knowledge of Amerikan spying on Amerikans is important for questions of war and peace. Amerikans are accustomed to thinking they are a "free country." Often times the united $tates goes to war with a mantra about freedom. So it stands to reason that if Amerikans do not know the full extent of their own spying on themselves and their own leadership as the number one prison-state, they may have more hostile views of other countries than justified---Russia, China and Iran especially. We saw that the united $tates attacked Saddam Hussein as a "dictator" too. Therefore, we find it especially objectionable that media outlets that should know better parrot their politicians to such an extent that they criticize other countries for what the u.$. government also does but the media does not report. This is done in the name of protecting "classified" knowledge and security.
Even if MIM prioritized Amerikkkans' civil liberties, it is difficult to see how to do that. Certain battles that could be waged only end up in Congressional refinements of FISA law. More importantly, our side of the battle needs to recognize that the money for spying is here to stay, at least until international class struggle substantially pinches Amerika financially. The Weather Underground argued in the 1960s that it had to distract people inside U.$. borders to do its job. It's hard to see why MIM should oppose more spying on Amerikans, without being given a specific reason. We oppose it in principle, but practical efforts are difficult other than building public opinion: the Democrats and Republicans are good at coopting any real struggle against the Patriot Act.
Notes:
1. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/cheney.lkl/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/washington/26cnd-gonzales.html?hp
3. http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3433694
http://www.imedinews.ge/en/news_read/55074
4. http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2474/
5. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07-31-mcconnell-gonzales_N.htm
6. http://www.factcheck.org/article416.html
7. http://johnedwards.com/issues/homeland-security/
8. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/
See also, http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/democrats-halt-.html