July 26 is the 60th anniversary of Truman's desegregation executive order. The AP has an interesting Insight piece on the subject.
Our comrade, IRRSoldier has posted often about ROTC abandoning certain demographics. Well, according to the AP piece:
A review of congressional nominations to the military academies shows that black and Hispanic lawmakers often recommend fewer students.
The fewest appointments to the academies came from Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., who forwarded just three names for the classes of 2009-2012. Two other members of Congress _ Massachusetts Democrat Michael Capuano and New York Democrat Jose Serrano_ sent up five names.
According to Pentagon data, the number of lawmakers who failed to nominate at least one candidate to each academy increased from 24 in 2005 to 38 this year. Of the 75 lawmakers overall who did not nominate someone to each academy in all four years, 40 were either black or Hispanic.
It would appear that some members of Congress have no interest in people from their constituencies becoming career military officers. Or, perhaps, the people in their districts do not seek military careers, even for a free education. IMHO, another downside of the AVF.
Al
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
But he's not "endorsing" Obama
Woke up to this interesting tidbit.
Seems that the Iraqi prime minister would like to see us out of his hair as soon as possible. Perhaps he feels that our presence only keeps the pot stirred. Further, McCain's "100 years, if necessary" cannot be a pleasant thought.
It will be interesting to see what comes of Obama's visit to Iraq.
Seems that the Iraqi prime minister would like to see us out of his hair as soon as possible. Perhaps he feels that our presence only keeps the pot stirred. Further, McCain's "100 years, if necessary" cannot be a pleasant thought.
It will be interesting to see what comes of Obama's visit to Iraq.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
And the beat goes on
In response to a question today as to why he had not stepped up and encouraged Americans to start conserving fuel, Pres Bush stated that the consumer was smart enough to to see the current price of fossil fuel and figure it out for himself. He said that consumers respond to market forces, and there was no need for a president to tell them what to do. That's why he lowered taxes, so that more money would be in the hands of these wise consumers to use as they see fit.
If that's the case, Mr President, then why are trillions of tax dollars going to be spent to rescue the free market mortgage and banking industries from greed, consumer excesses and flat out stupidity? Is it not incumbent upon a "leader" to offer sage counsel on issues effecting the nation at large? Or would suggestions of reigning in markets run amok be bad for business?
WASF
Al
If that's the case, Mr President, then why are trillions of tax dollars going to be spent to rescue the free market mortgage and banking industries from greed, consumer excesses and flat out stupidity? Is it not incumbent upon a "leader" to offer sage counsel on issues effecting the nation at large? Or would suggestions of reigning in markets run amok be bad for business?
WASF
Al
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Not Even Original Thought
This morning's IHT had an interesting piece on the origins of harsh prisoner treatment at Gitmo. Seems that our people can't be given a passing grade for originality on that program. Weren't even creative enough to rewicker the chart used, other than to change the title to remove the reference to the ChiComs.
I must add, they weren't even creative in using the materials. Same names for the techniques, etc.
So tell me all you commie hating, democracy loving folks, how does it feel to know we simply mimicked what we condemned 30 years ago?
Surprised? Hell no. Saddened? Extremely.
I must add, they weren't even creative in using the materials. Same names for the techniques, etc.
So tell me all you commie hating, democracy loving folks, how does it feel to know we simply mimicked what we condemned 30 years ago?
Surprised? Hell no. Saddened? Extremely.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
FISA and immunity for telecoms companies
My excellent Congressman responded regarding FISA and immunity for telecoms. I am not sure I agree with his rationale entirely, but he certainly provided a lot of detail and food for thought (below).
He refers to Mr. Bush's program as the "terrorist surveillance program." I think that is a mistake.
This is not about terrorists. Of course we should listen in on terrorists. And if Americans are involved in terrorism (Tim McViegh certainly was), we should listen in on them too. OF COURSE we should. Wiretaps are necessary.
This is about who oversees those wiretaps - the courts, like the People commanded in the Constitution, or just Mr. Bush and those he appoints - not a group known for getting things right on anything in the past, not a group known for putting partisan politics aside, thus not a group we should trust in the future.
I want all terrorists and suspected terrorists bugged, monitored, surveillance on them 24/7, I want their mail opened and read, I want their Internet activity in the hands of the government. I want the same for suspected terrorists. I want us to find them and eliminate them. That is not what this debate is about.
The problem is that Mr. Bush says he can't do that successfully if he has to allow a judge to be involved in that process in any way. Because of "national security." And he won't explain why, he just wants us to trust him. When questions are raised he attacks the questioners and pretends the issue is whether we should listen to terrorists. That is not - never has been - the issue.
Yes, we should listen to terrorists and suspected terrorists. Damn right we should spy on them. I don't hear anybody who says otherwise. But why can't a judge oversee that process like the Founding Fathers commanded? Mr. Bush won't even explain, he just keeps insisting that it is "complicated" and "national security" and "we need to listen in on terrorist phone calls." Well, yes, we do, but why not allow a judge to oversee the warrants like we do for every other kind of dangerous crime? Like the Constitution says? Like the FISA law passed by Congress and signed by President Ford says after they considered those same issues very carefully?
Yes we need to listen in on terrorist phone calls, but why can't we trust our judicial branch instead of trusting only the executive branch? The Constitution says they both have to agree that a warrant is necessary - but wiretaps can start immediately without any warrant, a judge just reviews it later - and there is even a special, secret, top-security clearance court just for that - the FISA Court, with judges that have the highest security clearances around. They even approved 99.99 of all warrants that were asked for in the past (the president won't even ask them). And they are fast - ask for a warrant after you have already started, and you will have a response in hours - and you never, ever, ever have to wait before you listen, you listen first and then ask later - and if the warrant is denied (less than .001 of 1 percent of the time) you aren't in trouble, you just have stop because the very-agreeable top-security clearance court thinks you are way out of line (such as "we have to bug Obama's office - terrorism you know."). The president didn't even ask for warrants - he just ordered the NSA to listen in anyway and screw the Constitution and the rule of law and the People and the Judicial Branch. And this wasn't in the hours and days after 9/11, this went on for years, and even after he pushed through the Patriot Act. He never even asked for a law to allow him to do so even when the Republican majority was giving him anything he wanted including a war in Iraq. He didn't even ask - he just did it, and still won't say why. And then, when it was a problem, he stopped (or says he has) - but if it was so vital to our national security, why? He still refuses to explain. After all, he is the president and there are scary terrorists out there you know.
Why couldn't the president use that special secret court and stay within the law? He refuses to explain - instead, as I said, he twists the discussion so it becomes one about whether we should bug terrorist phones instead of how we do it. He won't trust the FISA court, but he wants us to trust him - and he is breaking the law every time he refuses to get a warrant. Why? He won't say. Is it possible that perhaps he is spying on his political opponents, digging up blackmail info against congressmen, etc. Oh, of course not. He would never stoop so low, right? Right?
Sorry, Mr. Bush - the people didn't trust George Washington with such power (warrantless searches), and I think we had (and have) a little more confidence in his abilities and fidelity to the law than to you. If we didn't trust George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or FDR, given the huge threats they faced, I really don't see that we should confer such authority on you. That you just decided to take it anyway, hoping that by calling it the "terrorist survelliance program" it would silence critics because you could make the debate about scary terrorists and "weak-kneed liberals" rather than getting warrants like the law says, is certainly not a reason for us to trust you - even if you had a good track record of honesty and being right, which you sure as hell don't.
Which leads us to the immunity for telecoms companies that gave the executive branch of the federal government all of your emails and phone calls (yes, you too - ATT, for instance, allowed the NSA to monitor and copy everything on their networks - not just terrorists or suspects, but every email, phone call, text message, everything - yours and mine too. And they still have that data.). The president was willing to trust ATT, and ATT trusted the president - and the courts and the Constitution be damned, the president didn't trust either one.
And now lawsuits against ATT and others are tossed out. I was against that idea. Mr. Schiff voted for it. He explains why below, and I think he may be right. In any case, it was a tough call and he explained why he voted as he did. I am not sure I agree, but I sure will be proud to vote for Congressman Schiff again. I wish there were more dedicated public servants like him in Congress:
Sincerely,
He refers to Mr. Bush's program as the "terrorist surveillance program." I think that is a mistake.
This is not about terrorists. Of course we should listen in on terrorists. And if Americans are involved in terrorism (Tim McViegh certainly was), we should listen in on them too. OF COURSE we should. Wiretaps are necessary.
This is about who oversees those wiretaps - the courts, like the People commanded in the Constitution, or just Mr. Bush and those he appoints - not a group known for getting things right on anything in the past, not a group known for putting partisan politics aside, thus not a group we should trust in the future.
I want all terrorists and suspected terrorists bugged, monitored, surveillance on them 24/7, I want their mail opened and read, I want their Internet activity in the hands of the government. I want the same for suspected terrorists. I want us to find them and eliminate them. That is not what this debate is about.
The problem is that Mr. Bush says he can't do that successfully if he has to allow a judge to be involved in that process in any way. Because of "national security." And he won't explain why, he just wants us to trust him. When questions are raised he attacks the questioners and pretends the issue is whether we should listen to terrorists. That is not - never has been - the issue.
Yes, we should listen to terrorists and suspected terrorists. Damn right we should spy on them. I don't hear anybody who says otherwise. But why can't a judge oversee that process like the Founding Fathers commanded? Mr. Bush won't even explain, he just keeps insisting that it is "complicated" and "national security" and "we need to listen in on terrorist phone calls." Well, yes, we do, but why not allow a judge to oversee the warrants like we do for every other kind of dangerous crime? Like the Constitution says? Like the FISA law passed by Congress and signed by President Ford says after they considered those same issues very carefully?
Yes we need to listen in on terrorist phone calls, but why can't we trust our judicial branch instead of trusting only the executive branch? The Constitution says they both have to agree that a warrant is necessary - but wiretaps can start immediately without any warrant, a judge just reviews it later - and there is even a special, secret, top-security clearance court just for that - the FISA Court, with judges that have the highest security clearances around. They even approved 99.99 of all warrants that were asked for in the past (the president won't even ask them). And they are fast - ask for a warrant after you have already started, and you will have a response in hours - and you never, ever, ever have to wait before you listen, you listen first and then ask later - and if the warrant is denied (less than .001 of 1 percent of the time) you aren't in trouble, you just have stop because the very-agreeable top-security clearance court thinks you are way out of line (such as "we have to bug Obama's office - terrorism you know."). The president didn't even ask for warrants - he just ordered the NSA to listen in anyway and screw the Constitution and the rule of law and the People and the Judicial Branch. And this wasn't in the hours and days after 9/11, this went on for years, and even after he pushed through the Patriot Act. He never even asked for a law to allow him to do so even when the Republican majority was giving him anything he wanted including a war in Iraq. He didn't even ask - he just did it, and still won't say why. And then, when it was a problem, he stopped (or says he has) - but if it was so vital to our national security, why? He still refuses to explain. After all, he is the president and there are scary terrorists out there you know.
Why couldn't the president use that special secret court and stay within the law? He refuses to explain - instead, as I said, he twists the discussion so it becomes one about whether we should bug terrorist phones instead of how we do it. He won't trust the FISA court, but he wants us to trust him - and he is breaking the law every time he refuses to get a warrant. Why? He won't say. Is it possible that perhaps he is spying on his political opponents, digging up blackmail info against congressmen, etc. Oh, of course not. He would never stoop so low, right? Right?
Sorry, Mr. Bush - the people didn't trust George Washington with such power (warrantless searches), and I think we had (and have) a little more confidence in his abilities and fidelity to the law than to you. If we didn't trust George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or FDR, given the huge threats they faced, I really don't see that we should confer such authority on you. That you just decided to take it anyway, hoping that by calling it the "terrorist survelliance program" it would silence critics because you could make the debate about scary terrorists and "weak-kneed liberals" rather than getting warrants like the law says, is certainly not a reason for us to trust you - even if you had a good track record of honesty and being right, which you sure as hell don't.
Which leads us to the immunity for telecoms companies that gave the executive branch of the federal government all of your emails and phone calls (yes, you too - ATT, for instance, allowed the NSA to monitor and copy everything on their networks - not just terrorists or suspects, but every email, phone call, text message, everything - yours and mine too. And they still have that data.). The president was willing to trust ATT, and ATT trusted the president - and the courts and the Constitution be damned, the president didn't trust either one.
And now lawsuits against ATT and others are tossed out. I was against that idea. Mr. Schiff voted for it. He explains why below, and I think he may be right. In any case, it was a tough call and he explained why he voted as he did. I am not sure I agree, but I sure will be proud to vote for Congressman Schiff again. I wish there were more dedicated public servants like him in Congress:
Dear Mr. Henderson:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent vote on the FISA Amendments Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome your feedback.
As you know, the House recently considered H.R. 6304, the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008." This legislation is intended to update the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to ensure that our intelligence agencies can operate effectively, while ensuring that we respect the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.
In December 2005, we learned that the President was engaged in warrantless eavesdropping of Americans, contrary to law. In response, I introduced the "NSA Oversight Act" - legislation that clearly prohibited these actions by reiterating the exclusivity of FISA and our criminal wiretap statutes with regard to domestic electronic surveillance. After the Republican Leadership refused to consider my legislation, I offered an amendment on the House Floor that came within 7 votes of shutting down the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program unless it was brought under court supervision. Shortly after, the President announced that the activities under that program would be ceased and brought under FISA.
Nevertheless, I continued to believe it was necessary for Congress to respond to the President's dangerous assertion of unilateral authority in this area. Therefore, I offered an amendment on the House Floor in 2007 that clearly stated that FISA is the exclusive authority for engaging in domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. My amendment passed by a vote of 245-178, and marked the first time that Congress spoke on this issue. Unfortunately, this language was stripped out by Senate conferees.
As you know, Congress has continued to work to address this issue in order to formally bring all of our intelligence activities within the framework of FISA. Last year, Congress hastily passed the so-called "Protect America Act," legislation that I strongly opposed. Since that time, Congress has considered alternatives in order to restore civil liberties protections in this area. Earlier this year, a measure was proposed that passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. The Senate bill did not include sufficient protections for the civil liberties of Americans, and included provisions that would provide for retroactive immunity to certain telecommunications companies. I could not support this bill.
In order to prevent enactment of the Senate bill - or a reauthorization of the so-called "Protect America Act" - an alternative compromise bill, the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008," was proposed on the House side. While this legislation was imperfect and included items that I would have preferred were removed, the bill also included important civil liberties protections that I have fought for over the last two and half years.
As you know, the final bill included language that provides a summary procedure in the district court to determine whether the telecommunications companies should be immune from civil liability for complying with the surveillance requests of the Bush Administration. I pushed for a different process by which a court could fully hear arguments on the merits of these cases, including any defenses available in current law, while also ensuring that classified information was protected. Under this process, an inspector general would be tasked with representing the privacy rights of the American people, and the court could make an independent determination about whether companies violated the law by cooperating with the government. My proposal was not adopted in the compromise, and regrettably, far weaker language was adopted on this issue.
Although this was not the language I preferred on the immunity issue, the final bill also included key provisions that will protect the civil liberties of Americans. Specifically, the bill finally responds to the President's assertion that he can eavesdrop on Americans without a court order, by clearly stating that FISA and our criminal wiretap statutes are the exclusive authorities governing this area. Without this language, nothing will stop this president or future presidents from claiming the inherent authority to wiretap Americans without a court order. The proposal also provides for important oversight by the FISA court on the front-end, contains new protections against warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons abroad, and includes important safeguards to protect against reverse targeting of Americans. These important provisions made this a compromise I could support on balance, and I joined Speaker Pelosi, Senator Obama , and others in supporting this compromise.
The bill requires a full review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies and of the President's warrantless wiretapping program to determine what took place in the past and to ensure accountability going forward. I continue to believe that Congress should fully investigate the actions of the Administration in this area. No immunity is provided to any government official who may have violated the law.
As a member of both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I intend to carefully monitor our nation's intelligence activities and to closely review the report by the Inspectors General. Since the bill includes an important sunset provision that calls for the expiration of the law in 4 years, Congress will be able to make any additional revisions needed and to ensure that any abuses are addressed.
An on-going job of a Representative in Congress is to help constituents solve problems with federal agencies, access services, and get their questions answered promptly. I also encourage you to subscribe to the Washington Update, my email newsletter which contains information on local events, my work in Washington , and even lets you weigh in on important issues through online polls. Visit me online at http://schiff.house.gov to subscribe. Please know that you can always reach me at (626) 304-2727 or via my website if I can ever be of additional assistance.
Thank you again for your thoughts. I hope you will continue to share your views and ideas with me.
Adam B. Schiff
Member of Congress
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)