Dear Congresswoman - Redux

(H/t to dday of Hullabaloo)
Congress Daily is reporting that

"House Democratic leaders are considering the option of taking up a Senate-passed FISA bill in stages, congressional sources said today. Under the plan, the House would vote separately on the first title of the bill, which authorizes surveillance activities, and then on the bill's second title, which grants retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration's warrantless electronic surveillance activities. The two would be recombined, assuming passage of both titles. In this way, Democratic leaders believe they can give an out to lawmakers opposed to the retroactive immunity provision. Republican leadership sources said their caucus would back such a plan because not only would it give Democratic leaders the out they need, it would provide a political win for the GOP."

Whether or not this is a trial balloon – I cannot begin to describe the feeling of frustration I feel with Congress over this issue. How can this Congress, particularly the House leadership, consider backing down on Telecom immunity?

The White House has dialed up the fear again and again with charges that we are less safe, but has safely steered clear of any meaningful discussion of what they are really going to the mat for – civil immunity for the Telecom industry.

Don't let the House fold on this issue – please. Force a discussion of the immunity issue. If someone is capable of explaining the public benefit of Telecom immunity, let them speak out.

I see no reason to immunize corporations for past wrongdoing that is kept secret. I see even less reason to immunize their future conduct (as the President has now asked for) against prosecution.

We have laws to protect our citizens and our way of life – it remains to be seen if we have legislators who have the will to enforce those laws.

Don't compromise on this issue.

The upside to a McCain presidency

(H/t CJR) Assuming McCain wins the White House, I personally benefit.

McCain was born outside of the U.S., on a military installation, to parents who were both U.S. citizens.

Just like me.

If he can be president - then I can be president.

Score one for military brats!

Hope is irrelevant. Determination is what counts.

Last night, I watched Bill Moyers interview Sarah Chayes, onetime NPR correspondent turned fulltime Afghan businesswoman and activist.

It's impossible to summarize what she says and stands for, but watching her you are convinced that she is absolutely certain of the rightness of what she is doing.

She is determined to forge a connection between the West and Afghanistan to their mutual benefit.

She runs a business in Afghanistan, because that's what the local people asked her to do. They need work and a working economy.

Her obstacles are legion: endemic corruption, mounting violence, and U.S. policy that appears dedicated to maintaining a veneer of progress, instead of the real thing.

Read the excerpt of her new book. It scratches the surface of what she is trying to convey.

Lest anyone think this is a book plug - go read her interview on Now. She's a formidable person and tells a story that gets you by the throat. This is not just another country we should be saving - this is foreign policy, human tragedy and a fight against evil.

You just have to cheer for her. I just hope what she says resonates with those in power.

Salt is salt

For over a week now, I'd been trying to get some rock salt to spread out on the sidewalks so people wouldn't break their necks.

Last week this was particularly important, since there was a sheet of ice across the only sidewalk leading from our apartment - on moving day.

Nobody had any salt. The city was spreading dirt on the roads instead of salt due to shortfalls in their supply. The gas stations were out - Target was out.

I hit four or five places and just gave up.

So, last night I'm at the hardware store looking for a flashlight and I'm about to ask for rock salt and I hear the cashier telling the lady in front of me "Nah, we haven't had any for weeks - I'd send you to Home Depot, but I think they're out, too."

The lady in front of me beat me to the question - but the cashier is suggesting play sand, and I'm about to take him up on it when a scruffy looking hardware employee says:

"Why not use the softener salt?"

Yeah, sure pal. I'll drop mothball sized bits of salt on my walk, and -

Scruffy guy seems to read my mind. "Not the big stuff!" He points to a pallet of white bags. "This stuff here is ground pretty fine. When I lived in Montana, this is all we ever used on the sidewalk."

I give the bag a look - the grains are about the same size as regular ice bite grains.

The lightbulb in my head stirs to life.

It's salt. B- b- bzzt!
It's granular. Bzzzt, Bzzzzzzzz!

I buy one bag (I'm cautious). The lady gets four.

I pour it out on the ice and - voila! Salt. With the expected results, too.

Duh.

Shoulda bought four bags

Just what a new homeowner needs to hear

CJR recounting a WSJ article:

The WSJ includes numbers that indicate further that the press should lighten up on its use of “subprime” when describing the current housing crisis. Subprime was just the canary in the coal mine. The Journal reports that $3 trillion worth of mortgages—or nearly one in three— could be “underwater” by year’s end. Total subprime mortgages equal about $1 trillion.

Batten down the hatches folks, there's a big storm a comin' -

US Air Force declares war on Blogs

That's freaking weird.

Danger Room is reporting that the United States Air Force is blocking blogs with the word "blog" in their URL.

I believe in information security, but you would think that a military member who blogged state secrets would be traceable through their login and IP.

Blocking all blog URLs would be the definition of a blanket pre-emptive ban on speech.

Pretty weak, if you ask me.

Stop what you're doing

Danger Room has it right, you should read what Elizabeth Rubin is writing in the NYT Magazine about the war in Afghanistan - like, now.

With the nation focused on our war of choice, Rubin reminds us that our war of necessity continues. She follows an Army Captain and his men into a landscape that threatens their morality as well as their lives.

[Captain] Kearney could see a woman and child in the house. “We saw people moving weapons around,” Kearney told me. “I tried everything. I fired mortars to the back side to get the kids to run out the front. I shot to the left, to the right. The Apache” — an attack helicopter — “got shot at and left. I kept asking for a bomb drop, but no one wanted to sign off on the collateral damage of dropping a bomb on a house.” Finally, he said, “We shot a javelin and a tow” — both armor-piercing missiles. “I didn’t get shot at from there for two months,” Kearney said. “I ended up killing that woman and that kid.”

Read the whole thing. Then plan on reading her follow up article.

Late correction: I Must have Kenny Loggins running around my subconscious. Corrected the name to DangerRoom from DangerZone. Yeesh

When Lasagna just won't do

I can't find anything.
I'm hip deep in crap.
My bank accounts are empty;
and my punch list is a mile long.

I still can't wipe the grin off my face.

It's so good to be home.

Thank you to everyone for helping us move our belongings to a single address. Our planning was clearly not up to it, but you all got it done anyway.

More than just hauling our crap – you helped us put it away so that last night we could sit at the table together and eat - with elbow room – in our house.

I can't even begin to express what that means to me.

Truth is, we got our house with you folks in mind. E and I were tired of living in a house that wouldn't let us live they way we wanted – with you guys coming over.

Some time before spring, we're going to have a party to say "Thank you" for real.

Now, don't you wish you'd have just come clean in the first place?

(h/t to MyDD) Honestly, when will politicians/staffers/mouthpieces learn?

When you make blanket denials, it'd kind of be a good idea to know what you are talking about.

Sen. McCain - having assured us there was nothing to worry about in his contacts with a female lobbyist - went on to deny ever having spoken with one of her clients (a Mr. Lowell Paxson) before sending letters to the FCC on his behalf.

In short order, Newsweek's Mike Isikoff comes forward with a sworn deposition McCain gave in 2002 asserting that he had, in fact spoken with Mr. Paxon.

Defenders of the man will just say there was no attempt to decieve: the denial was overly broad, this was six years ago - it slipped his mind. All perfectly possible scenarios.

But when you're on the hot seat and you start denouncing those who would question your integrity - ya might want to make sure you go through your statement with a fine tooth comb.

He just looks like a bumbler. He can cry foul about the original article and the timing - but this mess is all on him.

Confused about the McCain-Iseman affair?

Not to worry, CJR's Clint Hendler is on the case:

Here, we have the Times—weakly, I’d say—implying that sort of garden-variety political-corruption causation between three McCain actions and Iseman. [...] the Paxson letters, strikes me as quite different—especially since we now know how seriously his aides took the developing scandal at the time.

Read the whole breakdown here.

My graphics card trembles in anticipation...

Having seen the recent trailer for the latest Star Wars game: The Force Unleashed - I'm starting to get that vibe again.

Maybe it's the music, or Darth Vader's respirator resonating in the dark, but there's just an indescribable joy associated with the Star Wars universe.

(At least the one that existed before Lucas totally sh!tted himself with the last three movies.)

That fact seems to have influenced the creation of later Star Wars products and series, and here's hoping this game will continue to restore a theme and setting that most of us never really got over.

Vote for our bill or you will all die

If I hadn't see it with my own eyes I'd be sure somebody was pulling my leg.

The GOP is going all Hollywood over the Protect America Act renewal.
I don't know that they could be more ridiculous than this:



There are way too many accusations that this ad or that talking point amounts to propaganda - but if ever there was a clearer example of big budget, home-grown propaganda than this, it would have to be satire.

All this has happend before

Think counterinsurgency, torture, denial and legal revolts are a new thing in American history?

Of course they are not. And no, I'm not talking about Vietnam.

I'm talking about the Philippines. Turn of the century. Remember "the Hiker?"

First we liberated them from the Spanish, and then we pulled the plug on their dream of independence. Then they rebelled, and then we tried to stop the rebellion.

And then things just went downhill.

The New Yorker has an article (h/t to DangerRoom) describing our troubled history in the Philippines.

There are obvious differences, but there are some obvious and disturbing parallels.

Another piece in the FISA/Immunity puzzle

bmaz on Emptywheel has a fascinating discussion of Telecom immunity, why the White House wants it, and wy so many Democrats are siding with them (emphasis added):

First off, let's be honest; you don't need immunity for legal and proper conduct.

[…]

So, what if the telcos engaged in behavior outside of said "safe harbor" statutory provisions that turned out to be illegal behavior, but did so in response to to heated demands from the Bush Administration, and with assurances by the Administration that there was a legal basis and dire necessity; shouldn't they be entitled to immunity from massive civil liability damages for that conduct? No; that is where the indemnification portion of the argument kicks in. Indemnification is the act of supplying indemnity in a contract:

An indemnity contract arises when one individual takes on the obligation to pay for any loss or damage that has been or might be incurred by another individual. The right to indemnity and the duty to indemnify ordinarily stem from a contractual agreement, which generally protects against liability, loss, or damage.

It is my contention that the telcos have just such indemnification agreements with the Administration/government, that we do not know about because they are classified and hidden, that so protect them for any liability and losses resulting from the litigation they are faced with; thus they do not need immunity to protect them from potential liability verdicts, they are already covered.

[…]

Simply put, telco legal departments are huge, experienced, and cutthroat competent. They did not fall off the turnip truck last night, nor any other night; and they have been dealing with wiretapping issues for law enforcement and national security concerns since the telephone came into use. As someone that has had dealings with such entities regarding bad/illegal wiretaps, I can attest that they always protect themselves vis a vis the governmental entity they are working for and are not shy about the use of indemnity provisions.

[…]

the President has the authority under 50 USC 1431 et seq. to authorize exactly the type of immunity agreements that are described herein, and, furthermore, to promulgate specific rules (including secrecy and classification, see 50 USC 1433) for their implementation. Now, it should be noted that one of the provisions of 50 USC 1431 is notification of Congress, specifically the respective Armed Services Committees, if the amount in question exceeds 25 million dollars. It will be interesting to see if this was, in fact, done or if the Administration disingenuously took the position that there was not yet an amount in controversy because there was not yet any known or set amount of indemnified liability (which is my bet under both a reading of 1431 and 1432(f)) and has kept this under their belt with the exception of limited disclosure to the Gang of Four/Gang of Eight as discussed here. In either case, this is potentially an explanation for why even the Democratic Congressional leadership has been compliant in ramming through passage of immunity; they don't want the public to find out that they signed off on massive liability to be paid out of taxpayer's pockets.

I'd say that's a very illuminating theory.

If you check the list of the 19 Democratic senators who voted for immunity, seven of them are on the Senate Armed Services Committee:

• Bayh (D-IN)
• McCaskill (D-MO)
• Nelson (D-FL)
• Nelson (D-NE)
• Pryor (D-AR)
• Webb (D-VA)

Sen. Clinton's on the committee as well - she did not vote.

(Lieberman's also on that committee, and he [of course] voted for immunity, but then - I don't consider him a Democrat, so he's not part of the count of 19.)

It might just be that the Telcos are protected from liability by government indemnification. Retroactive Immunity would then have nothing to do with shielding the Telcos - it would be aimed at getting the government out of their obligation to indemnify them.

Very Interesting.

----

Late Edit:
bmaz recommends an article by Professor Anthony J. Sebok of the Cardozo School of Law that questions whether the government could truly get out of writing a check - since quashing planitiff's civil suit could be construed as a "taking," and therefore subject to compensation.

Squashing Wikileaks, good luck with that pal

(via TPM)

It's a simple progression of events, really:

• Judge orders Wikileaks.org shut down to remove one set of documents.
• Internet sites begin mirroring the documents.
• Lather, rinse repeat.

Soon, the entire internet may be down.

I've never heard of the Swiss banking group Julius Baer, but now I feel obligated to read their dirty laundry.

Deliver us from the rubber stamp

The idea of a national primary keeps getting floated as a solution to all our electoral woes. MyDD's Jerome Armstrong is on this today.

Despite my confirmed irritation with Iowa and New Hampshire voters getting first crack at those who would be president, I'm not sure a national primary is the answer.

It's a cliché, but if the nomination goes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in a single, national primary – all campaigns for president must be national. Period.

No campaign will ever start small and grow into a national candidate – they must have the bucks and logistics to cover all the states (or enough of the population centers) to win.

This election has shown us candidates who do not have national legs (Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, John Edwards) and while they have clearly been given short shrift by the media – were this a national primary, they'd have never gotten into the race at all.

Armstrong links to an article from Democracy Journal where Kenneth Bauer asserts that a national primary will not endanger "retail politics" (something I'd concede) and rebuts my particular objection with :

It’s at this point that someone pulls the Jimmy Carter card, arguing that the current system enables a relative unknown to emerge. This idea is as dated as a can of "Billy Beer." Carter is, in fact, the only candidate to have made such a journey, and even he made important moves to build support during the Invisible Primary, winning, for instance, the Iowa State straw poll in 1975. And Carter benefited immensely from being the first candidate to exploit fully the dynamics of the new nominating system.

Assuming he's right about Carter (a fair assumption) Armstrong's argument gets boiled down to: "The door's practically shut on emerging candidates now, why not slam it?"

I don’t agree. While the political establishment would never go for it- the idea that the nomination begin in a few states before going to a wider set of states I think has merit. My chief objection is that the order is fixed in stone – Iowa and New Hampshire always get the Pole Position. The established powers always know what ground they will be battling on.

You set up a system where the order changes from time to time, and I think you afford the outsider a (slim) chance to get in – and you add some variables to the mix.

I mean, look at the primary we have now – the states were all jostling for position in the primary season and we've ended up with primaries after Super Tuesday that actually matter. (Yes, I understand that Super Delegates can F that up, but stay with me…)

Candidates may break under the relentless strain of campaigning – but we're seeing states voting with enthusiasm – people are just so happy to be asked their opinion (as opposed to being informed who their party's candidate will be, and won't-you-please-pull-the-only-lever-you-have?).

Making it a national primary will ensure that my vote is counted, but it will also ensure that my choices of candidates will be limited in a process I have absolutely no say in.

Piss in my pond and tell me it's raining

Do you know what's in the water that you drink?
Well I do, and it's a-maz-ing...
--Randy Newman's It's a Jungle Out There

If you live near the Great Lakes, the Center for Disease Control is sounding a lot like Monk's theme song: they know about some horrible things in your drinking water, but they're not going to tell you.

(h/t to Emptywheel)

The draft executive summary (PDF), which is helpfully stamped with 'Do Not Cite or Quote," has a few items you might want to be aware of (italics in original, bold emphasis added):

...Of the 108 hazardous waste sites included in the 25 [Areas of Concern], 71 sites were identified as having a potential human health impact. Of this number, 2 are classified as urgent public health hazards, 29 are identified as public health hazards, and 40 are listed as indeterminate public health hazards as defined by the [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry] Public Health Assessment Manual.

Vulnerable populations (i.e. children less than 6 years of age, reproductive age women, and older adults) living within a one-mile radius from the AOC hazardous waste sites included approximately 5,000 residents for the Lake Superior AOCs, over 200,000 persons for Lake Michigan AOCs, approximately 9,000[?] persons in the Lake Ontario AOCs, and over 7,000 residents for the Lakes Erie and Huron AOCs, respectively. These figures indicate that the total number of individuals within one mile of AOC hazardous waste sites totals an estimated 230,000. According to analysis of ATSDR's HazDat database for 2003, there were over 15,000 instances where contaminants of concern were found at levels above health-based screening values in a variety of media (i.e., water, air, and soil).

This report indicates that there are 25 AOCs which have not been remediated and that over 9 million residents are living within these AOC counties. The AOC county health measures (health status indicators) that compare unfavorably with the median of the peer counties and also with the U.S. population data merit further attention. Differences between the peer counties, the U.S. population data, and the U.S. AOC counties indicate elevated rates of disease beyond the norm (norm being the peer counties and the U.S. population data).

While no causal inferences or associations are made in this report, of the 26 AOCs, elevated rates were observed for infant mortality in 21 AOCs, low birth weight in 6 AOCs, and premature births in 4 AOCs. Elevated cancer mortality was also seen for breast cancer in 17 AOCs, colon cancer in 16 AOCs, and lung cancer in 12 AOCS...

They finished the report late last year, and the wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly - but this is yet another report that was intended for public release - and hasn't been.

People think I'm crazy, 'cause I worry all the time
If you paid attention, you'd be worried too
You better pay attention
Or this world we love so much might just kill you


I could be wrong now, but I don't think so

Ice storms: love them, hate them

Sure they almost kill you, but in exchange you get some lovely scenery.

Ready on day one. Day two? not so much

(h/t to Zell and TPM)

You have to wonder about the Clinton campaign at this point.

Pre-Super Tuesday, they were content with the air of inevitability.
Post Super Tuesday they were minimizing the significance of losing caucuses (and small states, and states with large numbers of African-Americans) and stressing the importance of primaries in states they had advantages in (like Ohio and Texas).

We've all heard the firewall soundbite over and over.

Now, WaPo is reporting that the rules of the Texas primary could dilute the payoff for Clinton's popularity there. Further, WaPo is suggesting that these rules came a surprise to "[s]everal top Clinton strategists and fundraisers."

Now, two things I would say about this:

1) the obvious thing - If this surprise is truly representative of her campaign staff's preparedness - Sen. Clinton is being very poorly advised. Being caught flat footed after Super Tuesday is one thing, a lot in play and the polls were not helping. But it was weeks ago. We've been hearing the 'Texas firewall' talking point ever since that night - and their campaign hasn't bothered to see if their firewall is actually a viable strategy?

2) Why are the rest of us hearing about this two weeks later? I missed it, but I'm nobody. The national news folks have bucks and time. Surely one of them could have read the state primary rules.

They couldn't be bothered project the current polling into the primary rules to see what the delegate breakdown would be?

Sheesh, people. I mean, I know they're busy crafting the next installment of 'Person of the Week' but how's about doing something that matters. Don't take the campaign's word for it - look it up. It's called reporting (you can look that up, too).

Late Edit:
MyDD's Glenn Smith breaks down the Texas rules for those who are interested.

They are pretty interesting, actually.

Delegates are awarded to districts based on the turnout from the past two election cycles. Since Hispanic districts have had pretty low turnout in the last few elections - Sen. Clinton's popularity with Latino voters will not get the same payoff as it would in a traditional primary.

Glenn gives just the what-if scenario I was looking for in this post:

This is a very, very optimistic scenario from a Clinton point of view:

Clinton wins the large Hispanic districts with 4 delegates each by 62 percent or more. This unlikely outcome would give her a 3-to-1 delegate split in those districts. Award her majority wins in Hispanic districts with 3 delegates, splitting 2-1. Award Obama an edge in two African American districts, one in Houston, the other in Dallas. Split the Austin (Travis County) delegates evenly, even though Obama will win Austin comfortably). Split all the other districts, awarding Obama 1 extra delegate to make up for all the African Americans in East Texas and independent and moderate voters in the 20 GOP Senate districts we're just going to split evenly.
How's this turn out? Clinton, 64 delegates, Obama, 62 delegates.

And that's the optimistic scenario. Not much of a firewall, eh?

You cannot help but respect the history of John McCain

Really. You have his harrowing brush with death on the Forrestal, then his shootdown and torture, and a refusal to jump ahead of more deserving prisoners costing him over five years of his life.

-but the John McCain of the present sounds nothing like the young naval officer he used to be:

(h/t to MyDD)

John McCain: [Lays out what he sees as signs of progress on the ground in Iraq to refute statements by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that the surge is not working.]

George Stephanopoulos: But if Iraq is meeting those marks, then why not withdraw our troops step-by-step as Senator Obama and Senator Clinton call for?

McCain: Because it has to be dictated by events on the ground, not by an arbitrary date...

Stephanopoulos: But if we are making progress today?

McCain: We are making significant progress today.

Mitt Romney got booted by his own party for talking this kind of crap - also for being seen to reverse long-held positions for political reasons.

I used to be a fan of the man - and I give him plenty of credit for McCain-Feingold - but it's hard to see him as a maverick when he's parroting the same kind of head-in-the-sand garbage the White House has been pitching for seven years.

Regular as clockwork

(h/t to Sadly, No!)

It's as if school shootings are a magnet for chest-thumping idiots:

In a recent post about the campus shooting at Northern Illinois University one reader, who lives near the campus, posted this:

I am discouraged that no one took their books, laptops, anything and just threw it at the guy, no one fought back. It’s that passivity that troubles me.

That’s a great point. It seems that far too often modern Americans have an instinct to cower or run away when threatened instead of fighting back. Especially younger Americans, and based on my personal experience I’d have to say that it’s being learned in our schools.

No, actually that is not a good point - it's just another poser telling you what they would have done [in their dreams] had they been there.

Yeah, hero - you'd have gone down swinging. Your cat-like reflexes have been honed from years of...talking about what you'd do in a crisis.

Va Tech drew out the same flavor of fool, as well.

This poster was small potatoes, but I predict we will not have long to wait before Michael Savage or someone like him rises out of the slime to make a similar comment.

Should be a bumper sticker...

(h/t to Group News Blog via MyDD)

As if

Danger Room scoffs at the transparently false rationale for the US shooting down one of it's own satellites: (quoting an unnamed space security expert)

"Having the US government spend millions of dollars to destroy a billion-dollar failure to save zero lives is comedic gold"

(h/t to TPM)

Going theories are: We're posing to make others tremble at our ability to destroy satellites; we're trying to keep our secret space stuff from falling into the wrong hands; or we're just idiots.

Hard to pick a favorite, there.

Nice work

CJR comments on an article in the Atlantic by Joshua Green.

CJR hits the high points - but it's an interesting article. Green recounts the ups and downs of Team Hillary leading up to the departure of her campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle.

Worth a look.

Late edit: removed the repetitive language. Geez - I must be tired to put the word 'interesting' twice in the same sentence.

He's calling it crap, only because the FCC works for the President

Democrats pay attention - This is how you take control of this issue.

Keith Olbermann, addressing the President, discussing his characterization of the FISA extension (from A veto of the FISA bill endangers Americans):

“This Saturday at midnight,” you said Thursday, “legislation authorizing intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor terrorist communications will expire. If Congress does not act by that time, our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying and what they are planning will be compromised.” You said that “the lives of countless Americans depend” on your getting your way.

This is crap. And you sling it with an audacity and a speed unrivaled by even the greatest political felons of our history.

He then rebuts this with Richard Clarke's statement and goes for the throat.

And your minions like John Boehner, your Republican congressional crash dummies who just happen to decide to walk out of Congress when a podium-full of microphones await them, they should just keep walking, out of Congress and, if possible, out of the country.

For they and you, sir, have no place in a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The lot of you are the symbolic descendants of the despotic middle managers of some banana republic to whom “freedom” is an ironic brand name, a word you reach for when you want to get away with its opposite.

Thus, Mr. Bush, your panoramic invasion of privacy is dressed up as “protecting America.”

Thus, Mr. Bush, your indiscriminate domestic spying becomes the focused monitoring only of “terrorist communications.”

Thus, Mr. Bush, what you and the telecom giants have done isn’t unlawful; it’s just the kind of perfectly legal, passionately patriotic thing for which you happen to need immunity!

[...]

We will not fear any longer. We will not fear the international terrorists, and we will thwart them. We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety, and we will call it what it is: terrorism. We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government, and we will name them. And we will not fear George W. Bush.

Kick crazy ass.

What's that thing in the middle of your back? Is it... a bone?

A Texas House Chairman aims some smack at the White House (h/t to Emptywheel):

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.
The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

Emptywheel also lists a statement from Sen. Harry Reid that sounds nice. But at this point - if I'm looking for words of inspiration - I listen to Sen. Reid seconds before I hit up the President for an ideological pep talk.

It remains to be seen if there is anything more than kabuki going on - but if more statements like these can fight past the filter - perhaps there is a chance an honest public debate can take place.

And that debate - I could be hopeful about.

Hardly worth mentioning, really

Today the House republicans walked out of the US Capitol to protest the house not extending the Protect America Act.

If you watch NBC News - this is the only part of the story worth mentioning.

What follows is what the Feb 14, 2008 broadcast of the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams said about this subject:

With all of the hubhub surrounding this presidential election season, it's important to remember the business of Congress goes on - at least it's supposed to. Republicans, though in the House stopped all work for a time today and staged a walkout. They left the House chamber to protest the Democrat's refusal to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law which expires this week.

That's it. No context - no reason why this dispute is taking place. No mention of retroactive immunity or the fact that (oh, by the way) even with the act lapsing, the wiretapping it authorized is permitted to continue until at least August.

It's just that those goofy Democrats are letting a law expire.

Almost like the GOP walkout achieved it's primary goal of framing the debate in a way most favorable to the administration.

If only there were some organization of lawmakers, people in power, who could hold a press conference and challenge this simplistic characterization of the issue.

Oh, wait - there is. And Speaker Pelosi had just such a press conference.

I'm sure there's a good reason NBC ignored it completely.

Too good to be true

Imad Mughniyeh dead.

The way the news broke, it seemed like this wasn't genuine. Hezbollah says so, he was killed in Syria.

But if it is true - there are CIA officers and Mossad agents high-fiving each other.

Now if we could only get the Mossad to go after Bin Laden, maybe we could see some progress on that front.

I haven't the slightest idea what the hell is going on

In a little less than nine hours, I will take more money than I have ever had and give it to someone else.

In exchange, they will give me the keys to a home that I will be allowed to live in provided I pay several times that amount over the next three decades.

I'm not clear on how I feel about this - but a good clue would be the fact that I am writing this in the wee hours of the morning instead of getting the sleep I spend most of my days pining for.

There is a certain insanity to what I am doing - never mind the everyday nature of the transaction. Something I cannot afford, I will buy anyway. I will pay for it many times over and think of it as an investment.

Many years from now, I hope to sell it to someone who is similarly deluded. After the transaction we will shake hands and both feel fortunate.

But I still can't get over how crazy this seems.

In two days we move our stuff into the house - and we're not ready. It'll go okay, since our stored items will arrive and be unloaded by other people. Still, somehow this just isn't happening.

Not again, seems to be my brain's attitude about the whole thing. Surely not so soon.

I have changed no addresses, switched no utilities, or done any of the things on the lengthy punchlist I followed just over two months ago. I doubt I still have it.

I think we can get up to speed. I mean, we never really moved in to this apartment - but cripes, we're tired.

Brazen Careerist

I don't have much use for Penelope Trunk's career advice. Her blog, Brazen Careerist, is chock full of observations that I find vague enough to qualify as horoscopes.

But I subscribe to her RSS feed. Why? Because she also writes stuff like this:

Then, one night, the baby was screaming and our three-year-old wouldn’t go to bed and my husband was telling me that I needed to get the three-year-old some milk and I was saying that he should and I’ll get the baby and he rolled his eyes, and then I took a knife out of the dirty dishes and stabbed my head.

I don’t actually remember doing it. I remember my husband saying, “Oh my god. There’s blood everywhere.”

Here’s how crazy I was: I just put the knife back in the sink and went to get the baby.

Whatever her shortcomings are as a career adviser, it's pretty clear this woman can write.

I'd argue it's also pretty clear that she needs to write.

Her story detailing her 9/11 experience at Ground Zero is one hell of a narrative. She describes being engulfed in the cloud of the collapsing towers, then:

There was complete quiet. No one could talk because no one could breathe. Then I heard cracked glass. I moved toward the noise until I saw a glow coming from a broken window. Somehow, I lifted myself into a broken window that was above my shoulders. I found air. And then I thought only of water. I found my way to a bathroom in that building and inside there were debris-covered men in ties drinking out of a toilet. I drank, too.

It's clear that she's pretty messed up - and I'm sure the causes of that go deeper than any blog post would tell you. You read some of the posts that flirt with those causes - and you want to root for her.

At a minimum, you want her to write more. Pour some demons out onto a page until she's done with them.

At least I do.

So, I keep checking the feed.

Call me a misery hound if you want - but there's a little inspiration there, too.

OMG - Just read the transcript...

Roger Clemens sh!ts himself in front of Congress.

Dear Congresswoman

Now that the Senate has voted to give retroactive immunity to the telecommunications industry for past wiretapping activities, it's up to the House of Representatives to stop this from becoming law.

More astute observers than I have pointed out a disturbing pattern of government behavior: The Executive asserts powers that are questionable. Congressmembers raise questions. Congressional leadership acts to make the actions of the Executive retroactively legal.

The Democratic Party was handed the reins of power to stop this –and yet it continues. Sen. Harry Reid pushed an immunity bill to the Senate floor and 19 Democratic Senators voted with the entire GOP to pass it.

I ask you, how could this happen?

With telecom immunity, the White House would close the only viable avenue the public has for holding people accountable for wiretapping abuses. It does not appear that the Senate has the stomach to rein in the White House, nor does it seem likely that Congressional requests for information on wiretapping activities will produce anything in the foreseeable future.

Incredibly, early reports are that the House leadership is considering some kind of accommodation.

Again, I ask: how could this happen?

On this one item, this ONE time - surely the House can stand up and say "No" to this President. He is staggeringly unpopular – and opposing him would place the house on the side of the masses.

Sen. Feingold did his duty and he lost. My other senator sold my privacy out. I'm asking you as my representative to *do something.*

I am sure you know (but I will say it anyway) the virtues and values that define this nation can go away if all we do is comfort ourselves with the fact that they are written down somewhere. In order to matter - to exist in any meaningful way - they must be defended *in public* whenever they are challenged.

Force your opponents to public debate on this issue. Expose their blatant mischaracterizations of what immunity is and is not.

Most of all do not let the House leadership sell us out like Sen. Reid.

In that case, maybe we don't want you to level with us

CJR nabbed a nice quote from the Financial Times about the subprime mortgage mess:

Hank Paulson, US Treasury secretary, yesterday said "the worst is just beginning" for a wave of subprime mortgage resets as he unveiled an initiative with six private sector banks to delay home foreclosures.

Ewww.

Just so you know who sold you out...

...on the FISA bill.

The full vote is here.

Voting for it were 48 Republican senators (Lindsey Graham did not vote) as well as their surrogate member Joe Liebermann.

Joining them were 19 Democratic Senators:

• Baucus (D-MT)
• Bayh (D-IN)
• Carper (D-DE)
• Casey (D-PA)
• Conrad (D-ND)
• Inouye (D-HI)
• Johnson (D-SD)
• Kohl (D-WI)
• Landrieu (D-LA)
• Lincoln (D-AR)
• McCaskill (D-MO)
• Mikulski (D-MD)
• Nelson (D-FL)
• Nelson (D-NE)
• Pryor (D-AR)
• Rockefeller (D-WV)
• Salazar (D-CO)
• Webb (D-VA)
• Whitehouse (D-RI)

The two Democratic Senators running for president did not vote on this issue

Sen. Baucus (D-MT), Johnson (D-SD), Landrieu (D-LA), Pryor (D-AR), and Rockefeller (D-WV) are the only Dems up for re-election from that list.

Turncoats

(Via TPM)

The Senate vote on the Dodd-Feingold amendment to strip telecom immunity from the new FISA bill wasn't even close: 31-67.

TPM also lists the Democratic sell-outs on this bill:

• Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
• Evan Bayh (D-IA)
• Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
• Tim Johnson (D-SD)
• Herb Kohl (D-WI)
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
• Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
• Mark Pryor (D-AR)
• Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
• Ken Salazar (D-CO)
• Tom Carper (D-DE)
• Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
• Jim Webb (D-VA)
• Ben Nelson (D-NE)
• Bill Nelson (D-FL)
• Kent Conrad (D-ND)
• Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

I have to say, Jim Webb and Herb Kohl... I'm just shocked.

Sen. Dodd is saying he'll filibuster the full bill when it goes to the floor - but thanks to this vote -the bill that does will include immunity.

Give me all your financial information

Here's another one:

Mint.com - promises to integrate your various banking sites and aggregate your financial data in handy charts with eye-popping flexibility. And it's free.

The idea of having all my banking, credit cards, insurance, and home expenses integrated in one interface kicks major butt.

The problem is, I have to give them all my banking website usernames and passwords to do this.

All of them.

Mint.com proudly tells you that they don't keep your data - which is true.

But Mint.com partners with a banking site called Yodlee.com to do all it's wizardy - and Yodlee.com most certainly keeps your data, because that's how they will pull data from your banking sites and give it to Mint.com.

Yodlee.com's privacy statement is - (to put it mildly) hard to find.

I pinged Mint.com to ask where I could find the privacy statement that applied to Mint.com users - and they responded with this:

Yodlee provides this same account aggregation service to many of the leading U.S. financial institutions (32 of 50 of the top financial services institutions to be exact), including, but not limited to, Bank of America and Fidelity Investments. As a result, you should be aware that Yodlee’s security technology and infrastructure is industry leading in the online banking sector, including hardware encryption. Yodlee is also in full compliance with all the important industry standards including:

§ SAS 70 II;
§ ISO 17799 Compliance;
§ Visa CISP Level One Compliance
§ Multi-factor authentication – FFIEC compliance

In addition to the points above, your credit card company protects you in case of fraud and you would not lose this protection in any way by using the Mint service. But what you may not know is that Regulation E, which is a set of rules issued by the Federal Reserve governing electronic transactions (online banking, ATM withdrawals, debit card payments …) limits your liability in most cases to $50 in the event of fraud. Consumers must notify their bank of the fraud within 2 business days. On the third day the liability goes up to $500 and it can be more if notification occurs after 60 days. Regulation E rules are designed to encourage consumers to feel safe about electronic transactions. Even if a consumer has acted negligently and succumbed to a phishing or fraud attack and given away personal identification information that led to the fraud, they will be protected. In fact, one of the reasons the Mint service provides email and mobile alerts is so you don’t even need to log in to become immediately aware of any fraudulent activity.

I suspect I'm not alone in wondering how much more my liability could be if I don't catch fraud within 60 days.

Killer idea - not sure I'd be beating a path to their door, though.

Digial file cabinet - you're such a tease

Lifehacker posted a link to this article from the NYT where some Google employee is proudly going paperless in his home.

CHRIS UHLIK’S children can be found in their home computer lab almost every morning. Nicole is writing a story about her two lizards. Tony is playing an interactive spelling game, while Andy is learning multiplication tables. Even 5-year-old Joceline is clicking away at a storybook game.

Mr. Uhlik, an engineering director at Google, and his family live a practically paper-free life. The children are home-schooled on computers. Other sources of household paper — lists, letters, calendars — have become entirely digital.

Going paperless was a conscious decision by the Uhliks. But many families may be closer to entering a paperless world than they realize. Paper-reducing technologies have crept into homes and offices, perhaps more for efficiency than for environmentalism; few people will dispute the convenience of online bill-paying and airline e-tickets.

“Paper is no longer the master copy; the digital version is,” says Brewster Kahle, the founder and director of the Internet Archive, a nonprofit digital library. “Paper has been dealt a complete deathblow. When was the last time you saw a telephone book?”

Sexy, and yet - I'm wondering about two things.

• Who has the time to convert all their paper to digital files (much less searchable, digital files)?
  
  
• Are scanned legal documents as acceptable as the originals?

I would LOVE to get all my files into a hard drive (and Carbonite them for safe keeping) but cripes, talk about a conversion issue.

This article mentions a firm in India that will scan all your docs for you at ($0.40 per page) but think about that for a second: I'll send my originals to India? I don't think so.

Make copies to send to India - I might as well scan them myself.

Scanning the non-legal documents seems like a good move, though - I'd be nice if there was some hardware/software integration to make that workflow better.

e.g. Scan document - be presented with a list of tags to apply to it (finance, reciept, etc) and then the system would dump the file where ever you'd previously told it to store documents that have 'Receipt'. You'd be able to enter meta-data on it as well.

Receipt-Lawnmower, 02/18/2008 - that sort of thing.

Oooh, but I want this. I wonder if somebody's already made this...

Okay, I know I'm outta control, but

This (H/t to TPM) was pretty damn funny.

We value your feedback: the sequel

This time, it's AT&T.

E calls to say our connection is out. I go through phone hell and get routed, re-routed, and then mis-routed. I do ten rounds with IVR

IVR: I didn't get that, please say 'billing'-

Me: Billing.

IVR: I didn't get that, please say 'billing'-

Me: Billing!

IVR: So that I can route your call properly, please choose from these three options. For billing, say-

Me: Billing!!

IVR: "I didn't get that-

*Press 0*

IVR: So that I can route your call properly, please choose from-

*Press 0*

IVR: So that I can route your call properly, please choose from-

*Press 0*

IVR: Okay, I'm transferring you to a Service Representative

--and so on.

This fun ends with me getting a tech guy to spell out how to reset our modem, and it occurs to me (while he's trying to sell me AT&T products I already have) that I should check on my billing status. Not long ago, I was late on a payment.

Long as I'm bitching to them about their end, I should probably make sure I'm holding up my end.

The rest, I'll say with pictures:

I started here and tried 'View Billing Statement'

And saw this:

So I tried this:-and got this:

-and finally, this:

I actually went back to this form three times over the span of twenty minutes- and got the same result.

I'm beginning to think there's a universal corporate playbook on how to provide crappy customer relations.

Late Edit: because I'm just that belligerent - I tried a fourth time (which also failed) and then tried chat:
----
Please wait while we find an agent to assist you...
Thank you for contacting AT&T Internet Services, my name is AT&T Support Person. One moment while I review your information.
Me: I'm at https://edit.client.yahoo.com/membercenter and when I click on View Billing Statement I'm asked to log in AGAIN and then I receive an error message that says
Error
Sorry, your billing information is unavailable.
Single Price Point customers monthly recurring charges for High Speed Internet service will not be reflected in the online bill statement: please contact your local AT&T Business Office at the number provided on your monthly AT&T
AT&T: Thank you for that information.
AT&T: Are you trying to view your bills online?
Me: Yes
AT&T: I'm so sorry to hear that you are not able to do so.
AT&T: Did you try going to this Web site?
The agent is sending you to http://att.com.

Me: Also, your feedback/email form at http://helpme.att.net/emailus_techsupp.php is experiencing technical problems (eating input)

AT&T: Thank you for reporting this to us.

Me: I'm at att.com now... logging in
Me: Getting a login message at https://cprodmasx.att.com/commonLogin/igate_wam/multiLogin.do
Me: message is "You are not authorized to access this system"

AT&T: Hmm...
AT&T: It seems that it does not allow you to access the site either.

Me: I was just logged into the yahoo/att site

AT&T: We already have reported this concern about the Online Billing service, yet, it seems that there still is no solution to the said issue.
AT&T: In lieu of the Online Billing service, I would recommend contacting our Billing team for further assistance. Please reach them at 1-800-288-2020, then choose "Billing" at the prompt.

Me: Thanks - is this a temporary outage, or is there something I need to change about my account access?
Me: You still there...?

AT&T: Yes, I am. Sorry.
AT&T : This actually has been an ongoing issue, and we are still awaiting word as to when this problem will be fixed.

Me: Okay. Thanks

AT&T: You're welcome, and I really am sorry for the inconvenience you experienced. May I help you with anything else?

Me: Just pass along to whoever needs to know that that feedback form isn't working. It's really frustrating to fill out a form, write a detailed summary of what happened - and then have the form fail and lose the data.

Me: Other than that - I'm good. Thanks!

-----

Later edit: Read the original

Won't be home by Christmas

None of these are news - but each is pitching a message:

It's not a stop or a halt, it's a pause.

And whose message might that be?

Washington Post - Gates: Iraq Drawdown May Be Paused

Voice of America - Gates: Pause May Be Needed in Troop Pullouts from Iraq

New York Times - Gates Endorses Pause in Iraq Troop Withdrawals

Fox News - Gates: U.S. May Need to Pause in Troop Drawdown From Iraq

Nothing is wrong, see? We're just pausing for a moment. Your regularly-scheduled pre-election drawdown will resume shortly.

In the unlikely event the situation changes - we will happily regurgitate whatever talking points we are allowed to hear.

That is all.

The soundtrack of my life

An odd property of my brain is that when I get really tired – I start to hear music. I guess a better way to say that is – when I'm tired songs are more likely to stick in my head.

By itself, that's not such a bad thing.

However, when you add in these two facts:

1) Simple, repetitive songs are easier to remember; and
2) We TiVo my kid's favorite shows

-you have the building blocks of the playlist from hell.

Yesterday's selection was It's a Big, Big World, with the way-too memorable passage:

It’s a big world
It’s a big, big world
It’s a big world
Such a big, big world
It’s a big world
It’s a big, big world
It’s a big world
It’s a big, big world

It’s a big, big world
Don’t you agree?
Big enough for you and me

(a song that follows Tom Lehrer's observation that children find "singing [the same thing] fifty times in a row is twice as fun as singing it twenty-five.")

Today's selection is from my son's newest interest: Superwhy.

Who's got the power,
The power to read?
[Something, something, something
that rhymes with "read"]

Super Why!
Super Why!
[Blah, blah, blah, blah
Super Guy?]

Super Why!!

This has been playing on an endless mental loop since this morning. Not knowing all the words ramps up the misery factor – but it really doesn't help that this show is basically a factory for the wedgie-victims of tomorrow.

I mean – the characters in this show are part of a group called the "Super-Readers."

You have Little Red Riding Hood, Princess Pea, Wyatt (the previously undiscovered younger brother to Jack of the Beanstalk),

and – a pig.

Their war cry is To the bookclub!

I know this show is all about teaching kids to read – and that's great. I'm happy my boy's watching this and not some twenty-two minute toy commercial (with regular interruptions for cereal commercials).

But- GOD – isn't there another way to show kids how to use letters? Do they have to nerdify every aspect of learning? Must they hit every stereotype?

More importantly - why do they have to have a freaking theme song? Surely budgets are tight – they could have saved some money and gone straight to the show.

Super Why!
Super Why!
[Blah, blah, blah, blah
Super Guy?]

Super Why!!

Were it not for work and current events all going to hell at once – I'm sure I'd have found the time to saw off my own head.

Imagine you're the GOP party chair of Washington

...and you're looking at these numbers (via CNN):

240 votes separate the two leaders, there are about 2,000 votes to be counted. What do you do?

Obviously, you call the race for McCain - and stop counting the votes.

I love this. Either the Washington GOP has dark motivations for swinging a caucus to McCain, or they are complete idiots.

Bring out the Comfy Chair

GG is rightfully going after Chris Wallace for his Gannon-esque questioning of Pres. Bush.

Here's the Wallace softball on interrogation [i.e. torture] and surveillance of al Qaeda [i.e. everyone who communicates with people overseas]:

WALLACE: …are you ever puzzled by all of the concern in this country about protecting of rights of people who want to kill us?

Even Pres. Bush balked at the slant in that question. I'd be tempted to give the President some credit for his reaction, but then - this is the man has regular sit downs with sycophants like Wallace while shunning actual journalists like Carole Coleman.

Compare this question with something that E pointed out to me from Sunday's Parade.

Get this: Parade "interviewed" the CIA director. Yeah, they even called the segment "Inside the CIA."

Their in-depth interview with CIA Director Gen. Mike Hayden (tastefully squeezed between opinions on government's role in baseball and "Is our election process too long?") covered a full three questions:

• What is our greatest challenge today in collecting and evaluating intelligence?
• Do you agree with those people who say that the CIA failed to see the rise of Islamic terrorism?
• Some charge that the CIA has used interrogation tactics that amount to torture. What’s your response?

I mean, Larry King would be embarrassed to ask these questions, especially the last one.

Unsurprisingly, Gen. Hayden offers boilerplate doublespeak:

The CIA’s terrorist detention program has been run according to U.S. law, which prohibits torture. It’s been subjected to repeated legal and policy reviews, and Congressional oversight committees also have been briefed. It’s involved fewer than 100 hardened terrorists, less than one-third of whom required any special form of questioning. Our methods have been legal and safe, producing intelligence that has disrupted terrorist operations and saved innocent lives.

In other words:

• What we did was not classified as torture at the time.
• We're sure it was legal because we asked ourselves repeatedly to make sure.
• We informed Congress members who could be jailed for revealing what we told them.
• Anything done to 20-30 people couldn't possibly be illegal.
• We believe what we did was legal, safe, and effective – and you should, too.

Gen. Hayden is not asked to respond to any of the specific (and very damning) allegations of misconduct – just "what's your side of it, you poor beleaguered public servant?"

It's too simplistic to make a connection between the conduct of two media companies owned by Rupert Murdoch. But it's abundantly clear that when an employer is an uncritical supporter of those in power, true journalism cannot be expected from those in their employ.

A doctrine of capitulation

While I'd share Jon Stewart's 'unscripted' reaction (at about 4 minutes in) to accusations that the Dems represent a 'surrender to terror' - I'd completely go along with Glenn Greenwald's argument about how they've ceded national defense to the GOP as an issue.

...what has characterized establishment Democrats for the last eight years, at least, is an unwillingness to challenge Republicans on national security. Ever since the 2002 AUMF vote, their "strategy" has been to cede national security to the Republicans by trying defensively to insist that there are few differences between the parties ("we're strong, too") -- all in the hope of shifting the political debate to issues they perceive are politically more advantageous, such as domestic and economic issues.

That's why there has been so little contrast between the two parties on foreign policy and national security issues -- because most Democrats believe that the wisest course of action is to become replicas of Republicans on national security policy as a means of eliminating those issues from consideration. The "strategy" has been as ineffective as it has been craven.

He lists an exchange between Chris Matthews and Terry McAuliffe which exemplifies why the Dems are in the state they are in.

They dodge the single issue they could bludgeon their opposition with. The GOP can point to no foreign policy triumph even when they have had a free had for six years (seven years, it could be argued).

It's like FISA, when you allow the opposition to frame the debate as "vote with me or the terrorists win," and there is no full court media press on how false that is - you've lost no matter what the facts are.

I mean, after months of rhetoric about how not renewing the Protect America Act was 'going to let the critical wiretapping program go dark' it comes out that the law's authorization went through the end of 2008. The law would expire, but the authorization is not in jeopardy for ten more months (a full year when this argument was first offered).

How do the Dems (and the media for that matter) fall down on these issues over and over again.

Hillary's getting advice from the guy who was so good at his job that he was replaced by Howard Dean? She deserves to lose.

Burn some bridges, crack some skulls, but get ahead of the message on these issues. If you sit back and let the administration or the far right spout bullsh!t without calling them out - the truth of their shortcomings will continue to be swept under the rug.

Say on

The NYT editorial board does its duty on FISA:

The telecoms, which are facing about 40 pending lawsuits, believe they are protected by a separate law that says companies that give communications data to the government cannot be sued for doing so if they were obeying a warrant — or a certification from the attorney general that a warrant was not needed — and all federal statutes were being obeyed.

To defend themselves, the companies must be able to show they cooperated and produce that certification. But the White House does not want the public to see the documents, since it seems clear that the legal requirements were not met. It is invoking the state secrets privilege — saying that as a matter of national security, it will not confirm that any company cooperated with the wiretapping or permit the documents to be disclosed in court.

...

This debate is not about whether the United States is going to spy on Al Qaeda, it is about whether it is going to destroy its democratic principles in doing so. Senators who care about that should vote against immunity.

The question is, is anyone listening?

We said - They said

Yesterday....

Bin Laden and Omar operating in Pakistan: U.S. official
By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders are directing insurgency operations in Afghanistan from the Pakistani city of Quetta, while al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is operating from Pakistan's tribal areas, a senior U.S. administration official said on Friday.

and today...

Bin Laden, Omar not operating in Pakistan: Islamabad

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan rejected on Saturday a U.S. official's assertion that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar are operating from Pakistani territory.

Looks like our chief ally in the Global War on Terror didn't get the memo.

Now? Now they get around to it?

Okay, I realize I'm on a bit of a tear here, but the NYT is reporting:

Military prosecutors are in the final phases of preparing the first sweeping case against suspected conspirators in the plot that led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, and drew the United States into war, people who have been briefed on the case said.

This would include prosecuting Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Let me get this straight: We capture this toad in 2003. We hold him without charges - incommunicado - in secret prisons. We torture him. The government takes a series of steps to deny all legal rights to him. Congress passes laws that constrain his access to legal representation and judicial review.

Most of this is obfuscated with double-speak or out and out denied by our government.

Having sidestepped the legal norms of this country - and having laid the groundwork for an endless series of appeals based on the legal apostasy they have created - the military is going forward with pressing charges the very week that our government confirms that KSM and others were waterboarded.

I mean, it's like this story is counter ballast to the confirmation of waterboarding.

"Yes, we torture - but look we're about to prosecute these guys! I mean, we did torture them, but we don't anymore! And we're gonna seek the death penalty! With the system we've created - they're sure to be convicted! See how great this is?"

You just gotta wonder.

A doctrine of legal preemption

Attorney General Michael Mukasey, has provided perhaps the most naked example of this administration's contempt for both Congress and the judicial branch

Here he is, testifying in front of Rep. Bill Delahunt (D) of Massachusetts:

(via Emptywheel)

Rep. Delahunt: You said if an opinion was rendered, that would insulate him from any consequences.

Michael Mukasey: We could not investigate or prosecute somebody for acting in reliance on a justice department opinion.

Delahunt: If that opinion was inaccurate and in fact violated a section of US Criminal Code, that reliance is in effect an immunity from any criminal culpability.

MM: Immunity connoted culpability.

Delahunt: This is brand new legal theory.


MM: Disclosure of waterboarding was part of CIA interrogation and permitted by DOJ opinion, would and should bar investigation of people who relied on that opinion.

Delahunt: Let's concede that waterboarding is in contravention of international obligation. If opinion rendered that amounted to malpractice, whoever employed that technique, simply by relying on that opinion would be legally barred from criminal investigation.

MM: If you're talking about legal mistake, there is an inquiry regarding whether properly rendered opinions or didn't. But yes, that bars the person who relied on that opinion from being investigated.

Delahunt: I find that a new legal doctrine. The law is the law.

MM: If it comes to pass that somebody at a later date that the opinion should have been different the person who relied on the opinion cannot be investigated.

Delahunt: Is there a legal precedent.

MM: There is practical consideration. I can't cite you a case.

Think of the implications of what Atty. Gen. Mukasey is saying (without legal precedent).

I mean - by his line of reasoning the Attorney General (or presumably anyone at DOJ qualified to offer an opinion on behalf of the department) can give you legal immunity for any action, provided you first ask for one.

Screw waterboarding. This line of reasoning carries the day, the DOJ and anyone in their good graces is above the law.

You wonder why a statement like that isn't plastered across newspapers or running on an endless loop on all the cable channels.

You wonder if their emails are going to start disappearing...

The GOP is cooking their own books?

(Via TPM and Politico)

at a recent meeting, the now former NRCC treasurer, Christopher J. Ward, relented, giving Conaway what was supposed to be an official internal audit from 2006. That document was a fake, the GOP members said. Even the letterhead on which it was sent was a forgery.

Revelations about the falsified document touched off an unfolding scandal that has rocked the NRCC and spurred a criminal investigation by the FBI into the committee’s accounting procedures.
...
[Ward] signed every FEC report the NRCC submitted from 1993 to 2003, and he was also affiliated with dozens of other Republican campaigns and leadership political action committees, some of which have already begun their own internal audits.

Ward has not responded to repeated attempts to seek comment.
...
The acknowledgment that the committee’s financial records might be inaccurate or falsified opens the possibility that the accounting problems could run much deeper than initially suggested in [NRCC Chairman Tom] Cole’s original public statement on the matter.

Looks like another popcorn-worthy scandal is brewing.

Follow the "no comments," and you know you're on the right trail.

Late edit: As well as following the people rushing to disassociate themselves.

Proof that I'm not a curmudgeon...

I know, I've been stuck on the crappy news lately - and there's sure plenty of it.

However, I keep thinking about something from the other day that makes me happy.

My boy watches the show It's a Big, Big World (wherein a hippie sloth named Snook tries to instill his lefty values into young children). Towards the end of every episode an obviously-baked Snook sings his goodbye song.

He gets close to the camera, puts his paw on the screen and sings "give me five," and my boy leans over the coffee table and puts his hand on the TV without saying a word.

The song ends, the show ends and the boy doesn't mention it. Why would he? He just gave his buddy, Snook, five on the TV is all. The most natural thing in the world.

I still smile just thinking about it.

He's such a nice boy.

Jack Bauer won't save anyone

When it comes to people talking tough on terror, no talking point gets as much play as this one:

We have a terrorist in custody
We know an attack will occur within a matter of days
We know this terrorist knows where and when the attack will happen
Lives are at stake

Ergo: we must torture. It's what Jack Bauer would do

Over and over – this gets trotted out as a counter to moral concerns. "We have to do this, even though under normal circumstances it is morally repulsive."

(And aren't we noble for being willing to do this?)

That's the argument. It's immoral, but it works – and so we must torture.

Except that's crap.

I'll parrot Olbermann and say let's set aside the morality question-

I'd also set aside:

• The improbability that you will know an attack is imminent. How many warnings have we been given that were bunk?
• The improbability that you will know your prisoner has the information you want. More likely you'll hope they have the info.
• The "they'll say anything" paradox. Beat them hard enough and they'll tell you they bombed Pearl Harbor.

Even with those items off the table – the notion that a terrorist in custody who has the information will provide it if tortured is just laughable on its face.

Put yourself in that cell.
-----
You're the bad guy. Willing to die – so long as you get to kill.
You know that a bomb is going off in three days – when, where and how.
You are being tortured.

Escape is impossible – Killing your captors is impossible.

So, how do you win?

By not telling them what they want to know for three days.

Die, lie – whatever it takes, all you have to do is hold out until you know it's too late for them to do anything.

Any story you give them will have to be followed up on – which takes time. You build a convincing narrative and they'll have to stop torturing you just to record it. Then they'll waste time finding out if anything checks out.

You string them along until the bomb goes off and whether or not they torture you, they still lose.

If the timeline compresses, that's even better for you. You can steel yourself for a few hours – and your delaying lies will be that much more effective.

Your real enemy is time. The longer they have to work on you, the more they can disorient you – make you think that three days have passed – that the attack happened, that you're free to talk.

That's the worry – that's how a real interrogator is going to get you to crack. Not by beating your body, but by manipulating your mind.
-----

That scenario where the bomb is ticking is a rhetorical construction – but even if it weren't, you're not going to get the Hollywood ending. If it's down to hours, and our hopes are pinned to scaring a fanatic into doing the right thing- we've pretty much lost.

Oh you can try torture, if it makes you feel better – but when the bomb goes off anyway, you'll realize you made yourself a monster for nothing.

It's the delegates, stupid

Finally, somebody weighs in on the most glaring omission in the breathless coverage given to Super Tuesday.

CJR blasts one out of the park and gives us all a little clarity:

Delegates matter, popular votes are window dressing.

Extending that somewhat, we lump these in the same category:

• Number of states "won"
• Size of states "won"
• Difference in the total popular vote
• Difference in each state's popular vote

All are bunk.

You get the delegate count, you know who's winning.

You talk about who "won" California - you're just buying into somebody's hype.

This is what happened in California - and it's not yet clear what the implications are.

Truly, they have no shame

(H/t to TPM)

Yes, we tortured our prisoners.
Yes, we performed domestic wiretapping.

No, we're not going to look into either of these activities.

I was going to say that's our Attorney General talking, but it's pretty clear who he belongs to - and it ain't us.

Goodbye, Plastic-man

Mitt's done. Awww...we hardly knew ye.

It's just that what we did know - made ya look like a complete tool. A GOP governor of Massachusetts with a bi-partisan track record of achievements would seem to have been a better fit.

But then, he didn't run on that record. He chose to invent himself as a staunch conservative. A divider as opposed to a uniter.

Appeal to the far right ('We Ought To Double Guantanamo' "who's with me?!") and you get beat by the very guy you were trying not to be - someone who does not have the trust of the far right.

Boy, there's some irony there.

At the risk of posting about the weather...

The interstates are closed and everyone's using "whiteout" to describe the situation.

I keep getting emails from co-workers who have spent hours shoveling their driveways just to get the car out of the garage - or who have braved the roads and are now warning the fools still at work brace to brace for the snow-pocalypse.

On the shoveling front, at least - I have never been happier to be renting than I am right now.

As for driving home - well, I enjoy a challenge.

(Remember this post when they find my frozen corpse.)