It's a web site... it won't destroy your computer. We'll take your data and store it, but if we lose it, we're sorry. We'll probably sell aggregate data (but not your name or email address) to advertisers. We reserve the right to charge for this at some point. These terms might change in the future, but if they do, we'll let you know. Cool?Ha!
Soon after 9/11, the administration started eavesdropping on Americans. By March 2004, Bush's own Justice Department had decided that the program was clearly illegal, and top department officials couldn't find a way to rationalize it. After a rebellion led by Comey -- and backed by a hospitalized John Ashcroft -- the White House agreed to make some changes. The revised program, still controversial, was described in the New York Times in December 2005. The White House christened it the "Terrorist Surveillance Program." And in January 2007, Bush agreed to put the revised program under court jurisdiction -- although it's not clear exactly what that means.That's really the question, isn't it? No real answers in the press, no driving line of inquiry in Congress - but honestly:
...
One of the chief unanswered questions, as I wrote in my May 17 column: What was the program like when it was illegal even in the opinion of Bush's own Justice Department? What was the government doing to its citizens for two and a half years -- starting soon after 9/11 through the spring of 2004?
Broader Privilege Claimed In FiringsYou will recall Sen. Leahy's comments on Meet the Press at the beginning of July, when Tim Russert asked if Leahy personally would be willing to go as far as holding members of the administration in contempt, Leahy responded, "Yes, I would go that far..."
White House Says Hill Can't Pursue Contempt Cases
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
Russert: "Are you sure the US Attorney would prosecute?"Well, apparently the President has made that little dilemma a whole lot simpler for the DC US Attorney.
Leahy: "It would be very difficult for them not to"
NEWARK, New Jersey (Reuters) - A former White House official who took top secret documents from U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's office and gave them to opposition figures in the Philippines was sentenced on Wednesday to 10 years in prison.Aside from how kind it is of Reuters to identify this man as an ex-aid, even though he was breaking the law when he was an aide (using a fax machine in the VP's office, no less), let's review this.
...
Prosecutors told the court Aragoncillo used a fax machine in Cheney's office to send documents to the Philippines. They said up to 800 classified documents had been compromised by Aragoncillo, as well as the name of a U.S. government source.
A Hipper Crowd of ShushersAnd here's mine:
By KARA JESELLA
Published: July 8, 2007
A new type of librarian is emerging: think Dewey Decimal meets Generation X.
Technology’s Untanglers
By BARBARA WHITAKER
Published: July 8, 2007
The work of usability professionals, who bridge the gap between the makers and users of a product, has recently developed into a solid career track.
I'm finding that my constituents' patience is pretty much exhausted," said Collins. "They're very disturbed by the high casualty rates."I'm no scholar of Sen. Collin's historical position on Iraq, so this may be old news. But there's one GOP senator in the hot seat making the right noises. Let's see if she actually votes that way.
Today, Collins said she has lost confidence in the president's leadership. "If the president isn't willing to adopt a new strategy, then perhaps we, in Congress, have to impose it on him," she said.
"We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress," Domenici said. "I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."Honestly? Who gives a crap? This was a press conference, for crying out loud. Pete's grabbing some TV time on the cheap.
Q So you're not closing the door, then, on a pardon.It's like a schoolyard argument.
MR. SNOW: Look, I think -- the President has done what he thinks is appropriate. The reason I will say I'm not going to close a door on a pardon is simply this, that Scooter Libby may petition for one. But the President has done what he thinks is appropriate to resolve this case.
Q You're saying that he thinks he's done what is enough?
MR. SNOW: He thinks he's done what's appropriate.
Q And that would be it, that he wouldn't do any more?
MR. SNOW: I don't want to read the President's mind, but on the other hand, I do not want to create expectations that somehow there will be more.
Q Tony, does the President think that Scooter Libby did, in fact, lie; that a member of the White House staff was, in fact, guilty of these crimes?
MR. SNOW: What he believes is that he was convicted of a jury of his peers. The President was not sitting in as a fact witness on a very long case, and he does think that it's important to respect what the jury concluded, because the jury really is the group that counts here.
Q Why not respect what the judge said, then?
MR. SNOW: Well, keep in mind that there is still -- he does respect what the judge said, but he also respects what -- I think if you took a look at the trial record, at what the parole commission recommended, that what the parole commission recommended was highly consistent with what the President thought was an appropriate punishment here.
Q Well, no, they talked about 16-plus months.
MR. SNOW: No, that is -- there's a range of -- what you're taking a look -- this gets very complicated.
...
Q And also, let me ask you this. The President and other White House press secretaries would not touch this question of Joe Wilson during the height of the investigation. I'm going to ask you now, since the President is now basically saying this is over and he's done what he's done -- Joe Wilson asked for an apology for the American people because of the situation. Is the White House now willing to give the American people --
MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into --
QWhy not?
MR. SNOW: Because --
QWhy not? It's over now. You didn't want to talk about it then. Let's talk about it now. Do you think the American people are owed something because of the breach?
MR. SNOW: Number one, there is still considerable controversy about the facts of the case, including Joe Wilson's veracity. Number two, there is also --
Q What's in question about his veracity? Detail that, please.
MR. SNOW: There is also -- just, very quickly, you take a look at the Senate reports, his characterization of who sent him over and what he told people when he was in Niger is at direct odds with what he attempted to tell the American public.
Q That has nothing to do with leaking the name of --
MR. SNOW: I'm just --
Q She's making a good point.
MR. SNOW: I'm answering her question, which she raised --
Q But she's making a good point.
Q You're arguing a different case.
MR. SNOW: No, I'm arguing --
Q The apology that the American people may want -- some may want --
MR. SNOW: I understand.
Q -- has to do with the fact that the White House allowed for a breach. And doesn't Libby owe the President an apology?
MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not -- this is -- number one, I believe the investigation found that the White House was not the source of the breach. Number two, the President has said that it is --
Q But it's part of the Bush administration.
MR. SNOW: -- the President has said it is inappropriate to have such breaches, and has apologized for them. So beyond that --
Q When did he apologize?
MR. SNOW: I think he said to the American people -- gave an apology, but --
Q Tony, one point that is not in dispute is that Karl Rove was involved in the leak, in some way he was involved. He talked to at least two reporters who ended up publishing this information. In 2004, the President said -- he didn't talk about convictions or anything -- he said he would fire anyone in this White House who was involved in the leak. We now know Karl Rove was involved; he did not fire him.
MR. SNOW: There are two things to note. We have also said that we do not -- we are not going to make comments in detail until the legal process is over. And it is not; there is still an appeal through --
Q You just put out a two-page statement. He commented --
Q Wait a minute, he just put out this statement, and it's it's over.
Q He commented -- how could you not --
Q Yes, he's commented now, so that's a big -- we can shoot holes in that statement.
MR. SNOW: No, on follow-on issues like this that still may have bearing and an issue that may return to trial, I'm not going to comment on it.
...
MR. SNOW: I understand that -- the President has the power to commute, and he used it, and he used it in a manner that he saw fit. That's not trying to have it both ways. What the President said is that he is not going to go in and overturn what the jury did. On the other hand, again, he thought that the penalty was excessive. He is certainly permitted to do that. You'll concede that the President does have that power, constitutionally, and furthermore, that this President has done it very carefully.
If he had decided that he wanted to commute the sentence and get rid of all punishment, but still keep intact the felony, he could have done that. But instead what he did was he said that he believes that when somebody is convicted of this punishment, it is worth having -- I mean, of this crime -- it is certainly worth respecting the jury's decision and having significant and severe punishment. And I guarantee you, a quick show of hands how many people in this room think that $250,000 is a wrist slap, or that two years of probation, or, in fact, the loss of your career is somehow a trivial punishment. This is serious punishment.
Q But doesn't he already have a legal defense fund -- that is going to cover --
Q -- $5 million that he's already got --
MR. SNOW: Well, we'll have to see.
Q So it's not really excessive for him, then. Most average Americans couldn't afford $250,000, but most average Americans don't have Fred Thompson raising millions of --
MR. SNOW: Well, on the other hand, he also has legal fees.
Q So the $250,000, though, is really not that much money for him.
MR. SNOW: I don't know, you'll have to find out. Do you think $250,000 --
Q But that's not the case -- you said that it was a lot of money.
MR. SNOW: It is a lot of money.
Q But he has more than $250,000 --
MR. SNOW: You don't know that.
Q Well, in what he's raised.
Q -- there's no shortage of people who would gladly raise -- and have already been doing so.
MR. SNOW: Well, good. Americans are a generous people.
Q How does the President justify this commutation when there are thousands of others in jail with a similar request?
MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that -- thousands in jail with similar requests?
Q Three thousand.
MR. SNOW: Three thousand in jail with similar -- I'm not sure that you can take anybody who has a perjury count and say that they're all the same. Every count has to be considered differently. The President, as you know, looks very carefully at these things. And furthermore, not every one of these cases comes before a President, as you're well aware. Attorneys quite often petition for these and that is one of the procedures by which they do it.
Q Can I follow on that? There are more than 3,000 current petitions for commutation -- not pardons, but commutation -- in the federal system under President Bush. Will all 3,000 of those be held to the same standard that the President applied to Scooter Libby?
MR. SNOW: I don't know.
Q Tony, I'm trying to get a handle on it -- are you saying this White House handled this case in an extraordinary manner, or in a routine manner?
MR. SNOW: I think it handled it in a routine manner in the sense that the President took a careful look. But it is an extraordinary case by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the extreme level of publicity, but also that in many ways, the hand was called by a court decision to go ahead and send Scooter Libby to jail while he was still in the middle of his appeals process.
Q But how could it not be extraordinary to grant something to someone who didn't even ask for it?
MR. SNOW: I just think that's the President, again, using his commutation power to do what he thought was necessary to address what he thought was an excessive punishment.
QBut absent a request, he wouldn't even have known about this case if it didn't involve his former aide.
MR. SNOW: Well, no, I think you probably would have reminded him of it. The fact -- you talk about, if it had not involved a former aide -- this is a thing that has been in the headlines for quite a while.
Q Won't this encourage other members of his administration to obstruct justice?
MR. SNOW: No.
Q Tony, I want to go back to the issue of an apology, and I want to stay issue-focused and not blaming. Are there -- is the American people owed some kind of apology from someone in this administration for the leaking of a CIA person's name, personnel's name?
MR. SNOW: Yes, it's improper to be leaking those names
Q You say it's improper, so you're saying someone in this administration owes the American public an apology?
MR. SNOW: I'll apologize. All done.
Q No, it's not. That's flippant, that's a very flippant way of doing something very serious -- it was a very serious matter. That was very flippant.
No question the events are newsworthy, but to run to the masses with "The sky is falling!" when its pretty clear that what has actually happened was this:"I think that rather than using the all-embracing term of 'al Qaeda,' I think that you should be using the term 'jihadists,' which I think makes more sense. Because, though they may share common purposes with al Qaeda, I don't think that al Qaeda has the control to operate something like this. They could operate a major terrorist outrage, but I think it would be more professionally run. I mean this was a hopeless, incompetent terrorist attack."When you see the ludicrous situation where none of the bombs were able to be detonated and these guys are trying to set fire to petrol, when all they did, they didn't get a detonation at the doors of the airport lounge; all they got was a bomb fire."They set fire to fuel. Well, that in its own way, is not going to detonate the gas cylinders and it's not going to cause an explosion. It was just a fire. I mean, that is so incompetent as to be almost laughable."
GyroFriesDew!Which is to say “I would like a gyro sandwich, French fries, and a medium Mountain Dew.”
GyroFriesDew!
