More on the National Surveillance State...

The reasons for the timing of this week's cartoon are obvious (see the sham FISA "compromise"), but it's really a subject that's been bothering me more than usual lately. There are a disturbing amount of "red light" cameras going up in intersections around Seattle lately, especially in suburban areas. Aside from the questionable effectiveness of "red light" cameras, how do we know that this is the only reason for these cameras? How do we know the FBI or NSA don't have access to these cameras? There are wide swaths of the greater Seattle area where there isn't a square foot of public area that doesn't have a government eye on it. Maybe I'm paranoid, but this really bothers me...

Articles n' stuff:

• Jack Balkin:
  

  I have noted previously that we are in the midst of the creation of a National Surveillance State, which is the logical successor to the National Security State. And we have noted that, like the National Security State before it, the construction of this new form of governance will be a joint effort by the two major parties.
  ...We are going to get some form of National Surveillance State. The only question is what kind of state we will get. As of right now, it looks like we will get one that is far less protective of civil liberties than we could have gotten.
  
  

• Predictably, the ACLU website has a lot of good material on this subject, particularly on the high-tech tools available to the watchers and the ways these tools can be used. One piece says plainly, "the fact is, there are no longer any technical barriers to the Big Brother regime portrayed by George Orwell."
  
  More objectionable examples of our brave new world... first from John Cole:
  

  A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taser®. According to this promotional video found at the Lamperd Less Lethal website, the bracelet would be worn by all airline passengers.

  This bracelet would: take the place of an airline boarding pass, contain personal information about the traveler, be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage, [and] shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes

  Juan Cole:
  

  Till now, DOJ guidelines have required the FBI to have some evidence of wrongdoing before it opens an investigation. The impending new rules, which would be implemented later this summer, allow bureau agents to establish a terrorist profile or pattern of behavior and attributes and, on the basis of that profile, start investigating an individual or group. Agents would be permitted to ask “open-ended questions” concerning the activities of Muslim Americans and Arab-Americans. A person’s travel and occupation, as well as race or ethnicity, could be grounds for opening a national security investigation.

  Tim Shorrock:
  

  Under a proposal being reviewed by Congress, a National Applications Office (NAO) will be established to coordinate how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and domestic law enforcement and rescue agencies use imagery and communications intelligence picked up by U.S. spy satellites. If the plan goes forward, the NAO will create the legal mechanism for an unprecedented degree of domestic intelligence gathering that would make the U.S. one of the world's most closely monitored nations.

  
  
• Julian Sanchez:
  

  The original FISA law was passed in 1978 after a thorough congressional investigation headed by Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) revealed that for decades, intelligence analysts — and the presidents they served — had spied on the letters and phone conversations of union chiefs, civil rights leaders, journalists, antiwar activists, lobbyists, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices — even Eleanor Roosevelt and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The Church Committee reports painstakingly documented how the information obtained was often “collected and disseminated in order to serve the purely political interests of an intelligence agency or the administration, and to influence social policy and political action.”
  
  ...if you think an executive branch unchecked by courts won’t turn its “national security” surveillance powers to political ends — well, it would be a first.

Fighting Words: 7/14/08 Cartoon...

"Notice From the National Surveillance State"...

Yet again...

Following up on my previous post on the House vote on the FISA "compromise," here's the list of the surveillance-society-loving Senate Democrats to vote against in November, including most of the usual names: Feinstein, Inouye, Rockefeller, Bayh, and... Obama?

Yeah... we should be that pissed at him about this. This could be, in his own words, a "deal breaker." More to come on this soon in my Moron post for this week's 'toon...

There's already an online movement going to punish Democrats for caving on this (via Cursor)...

Fighting Words: 7/7/08 Cartoon...

"World Cup of Poker: 2008 Main Event"...


Previous episode:

FISA Bill Vote...

GovTrack has the final vote on H.R. 6304, so you can find all the authoritarianism-enabling Democrats to vote out of office the next time they're up for re-election...

More on Retroactive Immunity...

There seems to be a little confusion about who the old guy is in this week's cartoon... in retrospect, he does look a little like Rob Reiner. Actually, he's supposed to be the guilt-trip guy in the Christian Children's Fund commercials.

Article tidbits:

• Glenn Greenwald sums it up perfectly (sorry about the length, but this whole thing has gotta be one of the top 5 objectionable things that our government has done the past few years):
  

  It's worth taking a step back and recalling that all of this is the result of the December, 2005 story by the New York Times which first reported that the Bush administration was illegally spying on Americans for many years without warrants of any kind. All sorts of "controversy" erupted from that story. Democrats everywhere expressed dramatic, unbridled outrage, vowing that this would not stand. James Risen and Eric Lichtblau were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for exposing this serious lawbreaking. All sorts of Committees were formed, papers written, speeches given, conferences convened, and editorials published to denounce this extreme abuse of presidential power. This was illegality and corruption at the highest level of government, on the grandest scale, and of the most transparent strain.
  
  What was the outcome of all of that sturm und drang? What were the consequences for the President for having broken the law so deliberately and transparently? Absolutely nothing. To the contrary, the Senate is about to enact a bill which has two simple purposes: (1) to render retroactively legal the President's illegal spying program by legalizing its crux: warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, and (2) to stifle forever the sole remaining avenue for finding out what the Government did and obtaining a judicial ruling as to its legality: namely, the lawsuits brought against the co-conspiring telecoms. In other words, the only steps taken by our political class upon exposure by the NYT of this profound lawbreaking is to endorse it all and then suppress any and all efforts to investigate it and subject it to the rule of law...
  
  That's really the most extraordinary aspect of all of this, if one really thinks about it.

  
  
• Meanwhile, Bush tries to get us to shit ourselves with fear:
  

  Bush renewed his demand today for Congress to complete action on the measure promptly. "Our intelligence professionals must be able to find out who the terrorists are talking to,'' he said at the White House. "Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that would make Sept. 11 pale by comparison.''

  
  As does Ted Poe, after the House refused to vote on the Senate bill:
  

  “I think there is probably joy throughout the terrorist cells throughout the world that the United States Congress did not do its duty today,” said Representative Ted Poe, Republican of Texas.

  
  Dana Perino helps the House get some perspective:
  

  "The ‘people’s House’ should reflect the priorities of the American people, not the fantasies of left-wing bloggers."

  
  And, Lamar Smith reminds us who the real good guys are:
  

  Exposing the phone companies to lawsuits would be unfair, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas said. "Is that any way to treat a friend? No,'' he told reporters.

  
  They're YOUR friends, jackhole, not mine. They didn't donate a dime to my last campaign.
  
  
• Matt Stoller on public opinion:
  

  Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters reject amnesty for phone companies that may have violated the law by selling customers' private information to the government, preferring to let courts decide the outcome...
  
  Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters oppose allowing courts to issue blanket warrants for wiretapping American citizens that would not have to name any specific individual...
  
  

• But... the programs were only initiated after 9/11, and only involve calls going out of the country, right? Uh-huh...
  

  In a separate N.S.A. project, executives at a Denver phone carrier, Qwest, refused in early 2001 to give the agency access to their most localized communications switches, which primarily carry domestic calls, according to people aware of the request, which has not been previously reported. They say the arrangement could have permitted neighborhood-by-neighborhood surveillance of phone traffic without a court order, which alarmed them.
  

Fighting Words: 2/18/08 Cartoon

"The Retroactive Immunity Fund"...

Primary challenges? Check, check, check, check....

Regarding the failed amendment to strike the "retroactive immunity" provisions from the FISA bill, Kevin Moore points to a list of Senate Democrats who should be treated exactly like Republicans the next time they are up for reelection.

No real surprises... it's the usual suspects: Feinstein, Rockefeller, Landrieu, Bayh, Salazar, Nelson x 2...

The very notion of a Democratic "majority" in the Senate will be a fantasy until these people lose their jobs.

More on Authoritarianism in America...

Quick list of articles and random notes for this week's 'toon, as I'm racing a dying battery thanks to yet another power outage. Seems the Pacific Northwest is now getting these "10 year storms" at least once a year now... and it's not even friggin' winter yet.

• On authoritarianism, check out an excellent article on movement conservatism by Paul Krugman, and a 3-part series on conservative authoritarianism by John Dean (not his best-written work ever, but he makes some interesting points).
  
  Also, DNI Mike McConnell has been in the news a bit lately... here he asserts the White House position that any "debate" on the administration's shadowy surveillance programs "will kill Americans."


• Speaking of surveillance, I was all set to link to this article about the Democrats holding firm on NOT giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies that dutifully handed over private information on their customers to the government. That was yesterday, this is today:
  

  At the start of the day, Democrats were confident that the measure would gain approval in the House despite a veto threat from President Bush. But after an afternoon of partisan sniping, Democratic leaders put off that vote because of a competing measure from Republicans that on its face asked lawmakers to declare where they stood on stopping Osama bin Laden from attacking the United States again.
  
  ...Democrats denounced the Republicans’ poison pill on Mr. bin Laden as a cynical political ploy and “a cheap shot.” But Democratic leaders realized that they were at risk of losing the votes of a contingent of more moderate Democrats who did not want to be left vulnerable for voting against a resolution to stop Al Qaeda, officials said.

  
  Holy shit. Add this to the failure to override Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill, and the Democrats are having themselves one hell of a week! (Note to idiot Democrats: I'm being sarcastic, you worthless jerk-offs.)
  
  In case you've missed it, the domestic surveillance issue came to the forefront again earlier this week, thanks to new reports that revealed more details about telecoms' involvement in the programs, including yet another report that these programs were initiated at least 6 months before 9-11.


• On our inegalitarian society, Juan Cole says the Bush/Cheney model can more accurately be described as "Bonapartism," which he says means "the state rules in an authoritarian way and disregards the people, representing itself as the true representative of the business classes. In fact, it serves only a small spectrum of corporate cronies of the ruling elite, disadvantaging almost everyone else."


• On torture and the "moral high ground," a NYT editorial asks a very simple question: Is this really who we are?


• On detainees, the attorney who represented Jose Padilla wonders what would've happened if no one had bothered to fight on his behalf. This leads her to wonder:
  

  After all, if the government does indeed have the authority to hold citizens indefinitely, without formal charges or legal counsel, what good are our Constitutional rights to due process?

  
  Garrett Epps has the story of Brandon Mayfield, the Oregon lawyer who was thrown into a Portland lockup for two weeks and smeared in the press by the FBI, all seemingly based on the simple fact that he is a Muslim convert. Thankfully for the rest of us, he hasn't been wallowing in self-pity since then... he's been fighting the Patriot Act. And he's having some success.
  
  An interesting side-note from Glenn Greenwald on Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, who apparently has shown a little bit of resistance to the administration on the issue of indefinite detention. Others maintain that Mukasey is not such a great guy.


• On the emergence of new details on the megalomania of Cheney and Addington, brilliant writer Charlie Savage has a new book out on their 30-year quest to turn the presidency into a new American dictatorship.
  
  The new episode of Frontline, which I haven't watched yet, also has some new details on the power-madness of Cheney.

Fighting Words: 10/15/07 Cartoon...

"Safety Instructions"...

More on wiretapping, the Protect America Act...

Quick list of articles for this week's 'toon:

• See Charles Babington on the Protect America Act, which may effectively "grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances." Apparently, the Dems were in a hurry to get their August vacations started and didn't think this sounded all that important. But, hey, it's not like the administration just acknowledged that the little domestic surveillance programs that they'd previously admitted to were actually part of a gigantic spying operation involving data-mining and eavesdropping on (possibly) millions of ordinary Americans, right?
  
  Unbelievable.
  
  Aziz Huq teaches us the 3-step dance that helped the administration push this bill through Congress.
  
  
• Check out Joe Conason on our fading democracy, John Dean on a historical perspective on Bush's handling of free speech issues, and Joseph A. Palermo, who cites Chalmers Johnson when making the statement that we may be one terror attack away from a form of military dictatorship.
  
  
• Here's a disturbing trend that you may want to think about before you go out to buy your iPhone: backdoors in all your favorite products for the government to spy on you. The possibilities are limitless. How about tiny microphones on to-go cups for your Starbucks lattes? Mini data-recorders in Trojan condoms?
  
  And what the hell is up with Apple? This is the second time I've read about something like this with them...
  

Fighting Words: 8/13/07 Cartoon

"The NSA's Funniest Surveillance Bloopers & Outtakes!"...

More on Alberto, U.S. Attorney's Scandal...

Short (and late) list of articles for this week's 'toon, since it's a topic that has been rapidly evolving:

• Glenn Greenwald on one of the more objectionable things that Alberto has overseen in his tenure, the FBI's abuse of "national security letters."


• E&P on the rash of editorial pages calling for Alberto's head.


• Speaking of heads: Think Progress on Alberto's head-scratching claim that "there is no express grant of habeas corpus in the Constitution" (it just says you can't take it away). Ummm... what?


• John Dean on Bush's use of executive privilege, which he says illustrates how "a conservative ideology that had always been devoted to limiting government power has been transformed into the largest expansion of executive power since FDR."


• Stephen Crockett's interesting suggestion that "underlying Bush's resistance to a full investigation is evidence of longstanding criminality that borders on racketeering." Ah, such are the days of the Capone administration...


• Check out my previous blog posts on the related subjects of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, domestic surveillance, and executive privilege and the MCA.

And yeah, I know... the caricature of Alberto in this week's 'toon is just about the worst one I've ever done. I'll work on it... but check out a better one that I did of him as Alberto the Torture Turtle.

On a good note, in researching Alberto's "cop persona" for the 'toon, I ran across a great '80's TV show that I had totally forgotten about: Sledge Hammer. It was a Police Squad!-like satire of Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer, with David Rasche as an over-the-top, hard-as-nails cop who liked to shoot first and ask questions later. I remember specifically the opening sequence with a "near-sensual" panning over Sledge's .44 Magnum as it rested on top of a satin pillow. What a great show that was...

Fighting Words: 3/26/07 Cartoon

"Law & Order: Justice Department"...

More on Predicting the Future with Bush...

A few articles relating to this week's 'toon caught my eye...

Most of us know at least a few reasonable people who simply refuse to believe that certain terrible things could ever happen in our great American society, especially in "this day and age." They dismiss any notion that these things could happen as being "alarmist" or "science fiction." Things like the United States government maliciously spying on its own citizens en masse, not in any imperative quest to keep them safe from an outside threat, but rather in an effort to check political speech and document dissent. Or like our own government manufacturing a fake international incident in order to intentionally provoke a war, in an effort to fulfill dubious political goals. Or like our own government responding to a terrible disaster befalling its citizens, and basing its response on the racial makeup or political demographics of the citizens involved (let alone intentionally exacerbating the disaster in an effort to harm certain citizens). Generally, I think one should try to listen to such people, and take what they say into account... some conspiracy theories are, in fact, absurd.

EXCEPT WHEN WE ALREADY KNOW OUR GOVERNMENT HAS DONE THESE THINGS IN THE PAST:

• I already talked about the "Crusty" response to allegations of mass surveillance a few weeks ago...
  
  Check out this article by Paul Craig Roberts on the possibility that the Bush administration may be trying to engineer another "Gulf of Tonkin" incident in an effort to provoke all-out war with Iran, or perhaps another "U.S.S. Liberty" incident in partnership with Israel:
  

  In 1967 Israel attacked and destroyed the US intelligence ship Liberty, because Liberty'’s crew had picked up proof that Israel had initiated the war with Egypt and intended to attack Syria the next day. Some have speculated that Israelis hoped their attack on the Liberty could be blamed on Egypt and used to draw the US into the war against Egypt.
  In 2003 the Moorer Commission, headed by Admiral Tom Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, concluded:
  "That in attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States.
  "That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty.
  "“the Captain and surviving crew members were later threatened with court-martial, imprisonment or worse if they exposed the truth; and were abandoned by their own government.
  "That due to the influence of Israel'’s powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people.
  "“That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of 'any foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel'’s interests when they conflict with American interests.'"”
  On the 30th anniversary of Israel's destruction of the liberty, Admiral Moorer said that Israel attacked the Liberty because Israel knew that the intelligence ship could intercept Israel's plans to seize the Golan Heights from Syria, an act of Israeli aggression to which the US government was opposed. Admiral Moorer said, "“I believe Moshe Dayan concluded that he could prevent Washington from becoming aware of what Israel was up to by destroying the primary source of acquiring that information--the US Liberty. Moorer reports that after a 25 minute air attack '“that pounded the Liberty with bombs, rockets, napalm and machine gun fire . . . three Israeli torpedo boats closed in for the kill . . . the torpedo boats'’ machine guns also were turned on life rafts that were deployed into the Mediterranean as well as those few on deck that had escaped damage."
  Admiral Moorer says, "“What is so chilling and cold-blooded, of course, is that they [Israel] could kill as many Americans as they did in confidence that Washington would cooperate in quelling any public outcry."



• A bombshell from Brownie, as he reveals that political concerns were ultimately driving decisions on the federal response to the Katrina disaster. To be honest, Brownie has about as much credibility on the issue right now as the White House does. And his accusation is that the White House wanted to federalize New Orleans, which I really wish they would have done much earlier in the process. However, Brownie's gradual revealing of previously hidden facts has the feel of an inside story that we haven't heard the last of, in the sense that there may have been many more decisions that were made based on political concerns. It's stories like this that make me more inclined to buy into suggestions like those made by Spike Lee in When the Levees Broke, that the levees were intentionally blown in an effort to fundamentally change the political makeup of Louisiana.
  
  I mean, would you really put it past them?

More on domestic surveillance...

For this week's 'toon, I wanted to stay away from the legal issues (which I touched on in this 'toon) and the theoretical social problems (which I talked about here) involved with the N.S.A.'s domestic spying program, so I could focus on issues like historical context and scope. But that doesn't mean I didn't read some good stuff on those other issues...

• Check out Glenn Greenwald on the gutsy decision a couple months ago by District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, which flat rejected almost all of Bush's domestic spying program on almost all grounds. The fact that she even held that the program violates the First and Fourth Amendments is important because this would not be overcome by a Specter "compromise" bill (that, seemingly, would just let Bush do whatever he wants anyway). See more great stuff on the Taylor decision from Julie Hilden (twice).
  
  The decision was stayed until it could be reviewed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which apparently will happen on January 31st. From there, it will probably go to the Supreme Court...


• Guess what? George W. Bush just declared in a signing statement that he has the right to open your mail without a warrant... and you bet your ass he's gonna do it. At what point have we officially crossed the line from "free society" to "police state?" Will someone let me know when it happens?


• Robert Parry on the previously proposed Total Information Awareness program, which was to include the use of "transactional data" (financial, educational, travel, medical, etc.) and "biometric signatures" (faces, fingerprints, gaits, and irises). The proposed office even set off alarms with the Da Vinci code conspiracy crowd, who noted the Masonic symbol in the logo and the ominous acronym that was going to be used.


• As far as I can tell, the use of surveillance cameras has not been identified as being part of the N.S.A.'s current snooping activities... but would you put it past them? Apparently, it's not outside the realm of possibility in the Western world these days... some sources say there are over 4 million surveillance cameras overlooking the streets in the UK, many with listening capabilities. I've noticed a few here and there in downtown Seattle... who do they belong to?


• Lots on the historical context of the current N.S.A. program, including this super-cool site from GWU with documents describing previous programs such as ECHELON, SHAMROCK, MINARET, CHAOS, and COINTELPRO. It also recounts the genesis of the FISA law that Dubya is openly violating, which, at the time of its development, was (of course) vehemently opposed by then-Ford staffers Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
  
  As one would expect, the ACLU has an excellent page on warrantless wiretapping, and also check out this cool online documentary from Julian Bond. See also Tim Shorrock on the scope and history of such programs.

See also my previous posts on this stuff...

Fighting Words: 1/8/07 Cartoon

"Crusty McCrotchety on Domestic Surveillance"...

Trying something a little different artistically again... see the previous Crusty episode here.