Uncle Dave's House of Useless Crap

It's Christmastime Again!!

It's actually a pretty low-yield Christmas at the Lewis household. We've all had colds, money is tight and we had to abandon plans to spend Christmas with my family in Cincinnati. However, we still got something together. My mother sent us some small, artificial trees, and I set them up about a week ago; Remy got on a chair and decorated the main tree two nights ago. Any decorations have to go up high in order to avoid desecration by the kitties. All of us wrapped presents in old Christmas paper we're trying to get rid of, and no one person knows what all the gifts are. That's the first time it's ever happened this way in my family - usually at least one person among the three of us knows all of the gifts.

This is written before my daughter is getting up - I've been up since 6 am and we just put the last of the gifts under our scrawny artificial tree. It looks nice. I've noticed that most folks this Christmas, at least that I've seen, are using small trees. Ostentiousness has not been a hallmark of this season - austerity seems to be the prevailing mood. And I'm thinking that's not a bad thing. After all there are 300,000 less people in the world then there was last Christmas due to worldwide natural disasters. This has already cost $100 Billion, and there is still yet so much more to do to recover from these things.

Nonetheless, I am experiencing a sense of eager anticipation this Christmas morning - something tells me it is going to be different, and perhaps more special, than others. My wife and I and Remy's Uncle Chris went to the mat to satisfy her wishes this Christmas, and Remy was sensible about it and did not have many to express. I hope that all of your Christmases this year are as successful as I suspect mine will be. I feel that we made more of an effort this year than in any I can remember, but this effort was directed at home - those of you who will be receiving cards and gifts late please bear with us, and Have a happy holiday!

UD

The following is all political stuff, which some of the readers of this blog do not care for. Please cease reading at this point and enjoy your holiday. Others may take this very long piece in pieces if they wish.

Something Rotten This Way Comes

This post was begun Monday, December 21. That day my wife began screaming "They've got something!! Whoo hooo!" and I ran into the bedroom just in time to hear the tail end of a news report on the resignation of a Federal judge who had been working on an investigation relating to the Patriot Act and unauthorized wiretaps of private citizens. He left the job after the Adminstration began to apply too much pressure on him. This was a judge who was not a flaming liberal of the kind whose views are automatically disqualified in this fear-ridden, paranoid society.

Alongside that, Michigan Representative John Conyers, the second-highest ranking member of the House in terms of seniority, published a call for censure of both the President and Vice President. It is a serious proposal, and comes along with an extensive Government publication which outlines the reasoning behind it. By Christmas morning more than 38,000 people have looked up this proposal.

http://www.house.gov/conyers/

The Bush Administration certainly knew this was coming. This was probably the motivation behind Sunday night's speech, where the President reasserted his position on the war and the need to go there. After I left home Monday morning I checked periodically to see if there was any progress being made on the story. The whole morning long there was nothing on the web - around Noon something about the judges' resignation showed up on Yahoo for about an hour and then disappeared. In that time no less than four editorials by conservative commentators showed up on the web, two of them written by the editor of the National Review. They basically took the perspective of preaching to the choir, disdaining the whole subject as much ado about nothing. "We're not worried about it, so why should you be?"

Of course, the Administration is all about "controlling the message." But these pieces seemed to have been prepared before the wiretapping information became public, indeed before much discussion of any kind had appeared anywhere about the topic. Since then, it is clear that the wiretapping was accessed from the central email and phone systems; millions of private conversations of Americans were monitored, and not just those of suspected terrorists. It is a constitutional violation on a scale not seen since slavery days.

On the 19th, Condelezza Rice appeared on "Hardball." Her comments also anticipate some aspects of the debate even before the public was sure what it was about:
from
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10546968/

ANDREA MITCHELL: We've heard so much from the president, from you, from others in the administration defending the eavesdropping on Americans. Why was it necessary to do this without going to the court, when the court is available? And what we've seen in the past couple of years since 9/11 is that there have been more than 4,900 applications to this court and only four have ever been rejected.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, first let me just state what it is the president authorized. He authorized the National Security Agency to collect information in a very limited fashion on the activities of people who have links to Al Qaeda and how those links might be communicated to people who are terrorists and involved in terrorist plotting abroad.

This is about the geographic territory of the United States and not allowing American territory to be a safe haven for conversations between people with terrorist links here and terrorists abroad.

It's the kind of gap between our domestic territory and foreign territory that was cited so often in the September 11th commission, where we understood that our intelligence agencies were looking outward, our law enforcement agencies were looking inward, and there was no way to close the gap between them.

Now, the president used authorities that are granted to him by the Constitution, in Article II, and other statutory authorities. I think the attorney general spoke to these authorities earlier, and so did the president.

The need to do this is because of the different nature of these people and their communication. Without getting into the program, which we still want to protect, this is a-these are agile communicators and we have to be more agile.

The FISA Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 1978, under very different circumstances, against more stable targets, longer term monitoring, and it's a difference between the need for monitoring the difference-monitoring and detection.

MITCHELL: But you said "limited" just now. You said it was not very extensive. But the actual number is 4,713 applications between 2002 and 2004. That doesn't sound very limited.

And the judge involved, who was appointed to this post by the late Chief Justice Rehnquist -- no bleeding heart liberal, this person -- she has only denied four requests and modified one. So what-first of all, that doesn't sound very limited.

RICE: But, Andrea, I'm not talking about the number of applications to FISA when I talk about limited. I'm talking about the nature of this program that the president authorized. And there, this is a program that is very carefully controlled. It is reviewed constantly.

MITCHELL: But all by in-house lawyers.

RICE: Well, it's reviewed by the lawyers at the National Security Agency. It's reviewed by their inspector general, reviewed by Justice Department lawyers and, by the way, briefed to leadership in the Congress and, in particular, the leadership of the Intelligence Committees.

**

When you see Secretary Rice saying these things in person, I'll admit she is very persuasive, confident, and sounds authoritative. But reading her comments in print, it is clear that they don't make a lot of sense. Here she's saying that the wiretapping is okay because it passes through so many different links on the chain of command before being enacted upon. But she does not explain how that relieves the Bush Adminstration of its obligation to uphold the constitution. An MSN poll conducted in connection with this interview showed that 85 per cent of the Americans polled felt that illegal wiretapping of private citizens was grounds for investigation and impeachment.

Later in the day there was still no word, but I did hear a newsman say that "there is an awful lot of excited debate about it" on the floor of Congress "right now." Handily every word spoken and not stricken from the Congressional Record is readily available at:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

It can be difficult to look up various documents that are relevant to one's search on Thomas, as there are so many proceedings that are of an official nature that clog up the record. But I was able to find a speech delivered on the 19th by Illnois Senator Dick Durbin. This is an example of the rhethoric being put out in Congress, at least where it stood a week ago:

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to commend my colleague from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd. Some of the people who are witnessing this session of the Senate had a chance to hear this man speak just moments ago. I do not know of another Senator more dedicated to our U.S. Constitution or one who has been more fearless in attacking Presidents of both political parties when he thinks that they have gone too far. Senator Byrd's speech should be read by every American as a reminder of basic freedoms in this country that we should never, ever take for granted.

(Indeed -- too bad I couldn't find it!)

Now comes another chapter in changing the tradition of America under this administration relative to our right of privacy as American citizens, the PATRIOT Act, which I voted for to give this Government more powers to fight terrorism, but we said every 4 years we will look at it to make certain we have not gone too far, that we have not given up our basic rights and freedoms in the name of security and safety.

Now we are involved in a debate. My colleague from Alabama has been to the floor several times. As a former prosecutor, he argues that under the PATRIOT Act we have to trust the Government, we have to trust the prosecutors, not to go too far. Unfortunately, that is not the standard in America. The standard in America says in this Constitution, this Bill of Rights, that our basic freedoms are guaranteed to us, and before this Government takes those freedoms or infringes upon them, there must be good reason and good cause.

Last week, on a bipartisan basis, we said, Stop this version of the PATRIOT Act, make certain that changes are made so that the freedoms and rights of Americans are protected. In the midst of that debate came a revelation which is truly astounding, a revelation that for years the Bush administration, through Government agencies, has been involved in wiretaps and eavesdropping on American citizens.

The reason this is of concern, of course, is that it violates a longstanding legal requirement that the Government has to obtain a court order to eavesdrop electronically on an American in the United States. We spell out with specificity what the Government must do if it is going to invade our privacy, listen to our conversations, hack into our computers, whatever it may be. The grounding for that is not just some speech on the Senate floor or the House; the grounding for that is this Constitution, where its fourth amendment makes it clear from the beginning of this Nation the standard we would use, a standard worth repeating in the fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That is in our Constitution that we have sworn to uphold. And for thousands of unsuspecting Americans, their basic records, their communications, their computers have been looked at and listened to by this Government, without legal authority.

So therein lies the third dramatic departure of this administration, from a tradition which most of us assumed would never be violated, a tradition which says that our privacy can be compromised if a President assumes the power to do it. This President did not come to Congress saying, I need powers to listen to America's conversations. No. He just did it. He said he has the power to do it as Commander in Chief.

Where is the concern in Congress? Where is the sense of outrage in the Senate? Where is the sense of obligation that our generation owes to our children to make certain that we are held accountable to protect their constitutional rights? I am glad that Senator Specter of the Judiciary Committee has said we will have a hearing on this, and we should. This is a serious matter.

I hope what we have learned about this wiretapping and this eavesdropping, these violations of basic rights of citizens, will cause all Americans, not just those of us serving in the Senate, to stand up and speak out. If we swore to uphold this Constitution, it was not just the paper that it is written on but the spirit and values that it stands for, values of privacy and freedom which once lost may never be reclaimed.

I urge my colleagues to read carefully the earlier remarks of Senator Robert Byrd and consider carefully our individual responsibilities.

I yield the floor.

**

My Closing Thoughts in Just a Moment

If anything, the debate has been heating up throughout the week. On Friday Wolf Blitzer was talking about practically nothing else on his CNN show. This is definitely a story the Government doesn't want you to hear, and I considered posting the information here Monday as a way to get the word out. It's hard to say what turn this all will take, and I hope it doesn't fizzle like so many others (the Plame case, for example.) It seems to have enough legs to move on its own by now, but one never knows, and I've been wrong here before. Nonetheless, what a lovely Christmas gift censure would make for those of us who value the Constution and what it stands for in terms of liberties.

Uncl e Dave Lewis