Shocker! FBI report reveals PATRIOT Act abuses

Breaking News: the Bush administration's Justice Department is abusing certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Okay, this isn't breaking news. In fact, it shouldn't be news to anyone - this was as predictable as death. Anyway, an FBI audit has turned up the abuses, despite repeated assurances by Bush and his various attorneys general that adequate safeguards are in place.

I seem to remember vast amounts of the hostility from this administration and the GOP to Democrats for raising this very concern when it came time to renew the Act in 2005. "The Democrats are siding with the terrorists" and "don't want to give us the tools we need to fight terrorism" chirped the president and his sycophants. Sure enough, in 2006, Bush got his way, signing re-authorization provisions into law in 2006, sans much of the needed safeguards opponents wanted for guaranteeing civil liberties.

From the ACLU:

A report released yesterday by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General on the FBI's use of National Security Letters (NSLs) reveals a systemic, widespread abuse of power.

The National Security Letter provision of the Patriot Act radically expanded the FBI's authority to demand personal records like Web site visits and e-mail addresses without prior court approval. The provision also allows the FBI to forbid or "gag" anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone about the record demand.

Remarkably, the report notes two instances where the FBI, on its own initiative, issued NSLs to get sensitive information after the FISA court had already rejected its requests. There are currently bills in both the House and Senate that would narrow the scope of the FBI's NSL authority and bring the statute back in line with the Constitution.

Bills are currently in Congress to make necessary changes to the PATRIOT Act, but I'm not holding my breath, considering this Congress' record of standing down Bush on important issues. It's important that we all contact our elected legislators to demand that they make the changes now. If you don't know names, addresses and phone numbers of your legislators, click Here, or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 225-3121 and you'll be put right through.

Read More

Chinese pet food scarier than these four

This one is straight from one of my favorite blogs on the Web: Philly's own Attytood. Take a few minutes and check out this very well-written piece. Here's two passages that I thought particularly poignant:

People who think that violence and bloodshed are an answer to anything are indeed a danger to a civil society, so unless the facts are radically different than what's been reported so far, we should have praise for law enforcement, including the NYPD and the FBI, for not letting this kind of nonsense get very far. It shows yet again that the law-enforcement approach to fighting this type of threat - so ridiculed when John Kerry dared even mention it in 2004 -- remains the one that in most cases works best. That said, the plot was not exactly the biggest thing going on the world right now.

Except at the CNN-sponsored presidential debate, where "liberal" moderator Wolf Blitzer would have us believe that the break-up of a half-witted scheme by these four losers was proof that all of Bush's terrorism policies are working, and shouldn't the Democrats fall in line. Here's how he put it to John Edwards (via Nexis):

BLITZER: Senator Edwards, let me let you clarify what you said the other day. You said the war on terror is a bumper sticker, not a plan.

With the news yesterday, this alleged plot at JFK which could have done, supposedly, horrendous damage and caused an incredible number of casualties, [emphasis in original] do you believe the U.S. is not at war with terrorists?

[Snip]

Look, what really happened at JFK was a hijacking. A chance for the potential next leaders of the United States to talk about a) real threats from bona fide terrorists, such as the unstable situation we've fostered in Pakistan and b) other issues that actually affect the day-to-day life of most Americans, like education, was hijacked by questions based around a local law-enforcement matter.

And, as Josh Marshall and others pointed out over the weekend, this is yet another time that implausible, half-baked and unfeasible plots have been trumpeted as high victories in the war in terror, including one plan to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch, the plot to "blow up the Sears Tower" by losers in Miami who probably couldn't find Chicago on a big road map, and our own inept Fort Dix crew. Not that it will happen, but I wish the media, from CNN to Fox to the AP to everyone in between, would go to the nearest window and yell: "All 'terrorism' is not created equal."

This is by far the most spot-on analysis of the news coverage about the JFK plot I've read.

To hear the authorities tell it, one could conclude that officials stopped another 9-11 just in the nick of time.

A quick sample of quotes:

• Between a news release and a news conference, this is what Roslynn R. Mauskopf, the United States attorney in Brooklyn, said about the case: "Had the plot been carried out, it could have resulted in unfathomable damage, deaths and destruction," and "The devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded are just unthinkable." (Also keep in mind that Mauskopf is a U.S. Attorney, and it's not well documented that U.S. attorneys in the Bush administration are as political as any U.S. attorneys in history. If they are not, they are fired.

• "Once again, would-be terrorists have put New York City in their cross hairs," said NYPD Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.

• "I believe I spoke the simple truth at the press conference: the ambitions were horrific, the capacities were very limited, but they kept trying. Their signature was their persistence," said Mark J. Mershon, assistant director in charge of the F.B.I.'s New York office.

It's hard to figure out who's most responsible for absurd fear-mongering - the media, or the three people above, from left to right - Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States attorney; Raymond W. Kelly, New York City police commissioner, center; and Mark J. Mershon, assistant F.B.I. director, right, following their news conference on Saturday.

It didn't matter which news network you tuned in to over the weekend - it was "hype the terror plot," 24-7.

Of course, according to The New York Times, Mauskopf's press release mentioned that the "public was never at risk" and told reporters that law enforcement "had stopped this plot long before it ever had a chance to be carried out," but news reports conveniently neglected to mention that fact.

Other sources painted a similar picture. "Capability low, intent very high," a law enforcement official said of the suspects, as quoted in the Times.

Other law enforcement officials and engineers dismissed the perception that the planned attack would have resulted in a catastrophic chain reaction so widely reported in the media, citing safeguards that would have stopped any explosions from spreading.

AP wrote this on Saturday: But while pipeline and security experts agreed that such an attack would have crippled America's economy, particularly the airline industry, they said it probably would not have led to significant loss of life as intended.

I'm sure glad to see that AP didn't overreact. I'm sure there are some experts out there who could back up the media's and the government's ridiculous claims about thousands dead, right? From Attytood:

Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline expert and president of Accufacts Inc., an energy consulting firm that focuses on pipelines and tank farms, said the force of explosion would depend on the amount of fuel under pressure, but it would not travel up and down the line.

"That doesn't mean wackos out there can't do damage and cause a fire, but those explosions and fires are going to be fairly restricted," he said.

Oh. Well, maybe another expert backs it up:

John W. Magaw, a former head of the Transportation Security Administration, told The Washington Post that such an attack 'may not cause a lot of deaths, but it would be spectacular and seen around world."

He said it "could cripple the airlines."

So, a fire at JFK's fuel facility could "cripple the airlines"?

Heaven help us.

So, the last two big terror-scares, to sum up - four pizza delivery guys who were going to attack Fort Dix, an army base full of armed soldiers; and four half-baked, wanna-be terrorists who had a pipe dream (pardon the pun) of attacking JFK's airline fuel pipeline, but they had no money, no detailed plans and no explosives.

In other words, these guys didn't know C-4 from Connect Four. By all accounts I've read, these bozos were as close to attacking JFK's pipeline as Jaws, our family cat. Sorry, little buddy - I'm collectin'.

Top photo by Peter Foley/European Pressphoto Agency via The New York Times

JFK Airport plot convenient excuse for W to crank up the PR machine

My first thought when I heard about the FBI's sting operation that uncovered the plot to blow up JFK International Airport and surrounding neighborhoods was, "thank God the FBI caught them." However, my second thought was, "I wonder if this is being milked by an administration that never misses an opportunity to remind us how safe it's keeping the country."

To me, that's a pretty pathetic thought for any American citizen to have, yet that's how cynical I've become in the face of the Bush administration's relentless PR and marketing effort to force feed their image as the Party That Can Keep Us the Safest. I'd invite anyone who thinks that's cynical to look up various quotations by Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani from this year alone - the evidence is easy to find. (You can find lots of it in CMB's archives.)

Of course, the media didn't miss an opportunity to hype the living daylights out of this story over the weekend, either. Don't get me wrong - of course it's a big story, and the media has a responsibility to cover it, and cover it well. But, the media never ceases to amaze me when something like this is uncovered. Just like the plot to attack Fort Dix last month - you would have thought that nothing else was happening in the world, at all.

Ever since 9-11, I just get the feeling that the media has overtly complied with the Bush administration's wishes to scare the living daylights out of us. History shows that a frightened public is a compliant public. Since the 9-11 attacks, there are examples too numerous to mention of this administration's taking advantage of our fears. The USA Patriot Act is probably the best example.

The FBI infiltrated the suspected Muslim terrorist cell that plotted to blow up the airport, its fuel tanks and a jet fuel artery, arresting three men, one of them a former member of Guyana's parliament. A fourth man is still being sought in Trinidad as part of the plot that authorities said they had been tracking for more than a year and was foiled in the planning stages.

Again, bravo to the FBI for a job well done (I really mean that), but this whole incident raises the question - how safe are we, really? Our ports, nuclear plants, food and water supply and many other areas are still wide open, all because of the War in Iraq. This administration has gotten way with homeland security on the cheap. I sure hope our luck continues, but Homeland Security shouldn't be left to chance with luck. Above, fuel tanks are seen at JFK International Airport in New York Sunday, June 3, 2007. I know that there's a great deal that I don't know about security at airports, but just from what I've seen from doing what little air travel I have done in the past few years, our security measures could use a great deal of improvement.

Above, yesterday an approaching aircraft flies overhead past a marker indicating the route of the jet fuel pipeline supplying JFK airport near 157 Ave. and 99th St. in the residential neighborhood of Howard Beach, Queens, N.Y. The lengthy pipeline was installed decades ago to replace barge deliveries of jet fuel. Should it be this easy for a would-be terrorist to identify and find a major jet fuel pipeline? Just a thought.

And one more thought - I did some reading about the plot that the FBI uncovered, and it seems that the terrorists had a difficult time acquiring explosives to do the job. Really? How hard is it to get explosives in America? Not that hard. Timothy McVeigh didn't find it very hard, and neither did the people who perpetrated the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Either the media (and really, the FBI and this administration) are all blowing this threat way out of proportion (anything think that's far-fetched?), or these four terrorists are the dumbest people walking the planet. Or, it could be a combination of the two.

My point in all of this is that my feelings are yet another indication to me about how far this administration's credibility has fallen - it's to the point now that any report about terrorism or the War on Terrorism can and should be viewed with skepticism before being believed.

I'll feel much more safe, and a whole lot more trusting of our government, when Bush is out of office.

Top photo, Reuters
Second and third photos by David Karp, AP
Bottom photo by Rick Maiman, AP

Must-see movie #2: The U.S. vs. John Lennon. In theaters now.

Have to bring you one more trailer this morning. This is another must-see movie that I will write about soon.

Watching this trailer, there are too many paralells to count between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War: Nixon/Bush, Vietnam/Iraq, Silencing voices of dissent in the 60's/70s and now, Lennon/The Dixie Chicks, and I could go on and on.

Amazing that Nixon considered Lennon a threat and they even started deportation hearings on him. How American. I often wonder if the right would have forced our government to do the same against the Dixie Chicks, if only they were born in a foreign land.

This film would have been thought provoking regardless of release date, but it brings up a number of important contemporary issues apropos to the War in Iraq and the erosion of our personal freedoms, all in the name of protecting the country against terrorism.

The U.S. vs. John Lennon is proof of what people in power can do to silence voices of dissent in time of war. All Americans should see this movie, regardless of their opinions on Bush or the War in Iraq.

No one puts it better than The New York Times' Adam Cohen in a Sept. 21 editorial about Lennon titled, "Editorial Observer; While Nixon Campaigned, the F.B.I. Watched John Lennon." Take a quick read:

In December 1971, John Lennon sang at an Ann Arbor, Mich., concert calling for the release of a man who had been given 10 years in prison for possessing two marijuana cigarettes. The song he wrote for the occasion, ''John Sinclair,'' was remarkably effective. Within days, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered Mr. Sinclair released.

What Lennon did not know at the time was that there were F.B.I. informants in the audience taking notes on everything from the attendance (15,000) to the artistic merits of his new song. (''Lacking Lennon's usual standards,'' his F.B.I. file reports, and ''Yoko can't even remain on key.'') The government spied on Lennon for the next 12 months, and tried to have him deported to England.

This improbable surveillance campaign is the subject of a new documentary, ''The U.S. vs. John Lennon.'' The film makes two important points about domestic surveillance, one well-known, the other quite surprising. With the nation in the midst of a new domestic spying debate, the story is a cautionary tale.

It focuses on the late 1960's and early 1970's, when the former Beatle used his considerable fame and charisma to oppose the Vietnam War. Lennon attracted worldwide attention in 1969 when he and Yoko Ono married and held their much-publicized ''bed-ins'' in Amsterdam and Montreal, giving interviews about peace from under their honeymoon sheets. Lennon put to music a simple catch phrase -- ''All we are saying is give peace a chance'' -- and the antiwar movement had its anthem. Two years later, he released ''Imagine.''

The government responded with an extensive surveillance program. Lennon's F.B.I. files -- which are collected in the book ''Gimme Some Truth'' by Jon Wiener -- reveal that the bureau was monitoring everything from his appearance on ''The Mike Douglas Show'' to far more personal matters, like the whereabouts of Ono's daughter from a previous marriage.

The F.B.I.'s surveillance of Lennon is a reminder of how easily domestic spying can become unmoored from any legitimate law enforcement purpose. What is more surprising, and ultimately more unsettling, is the degree to which the surveillance turns out to have been intertwined with electoral politics. At the time of the John Sinclair rally, there was talk that Lennon would join a national concert tour aimed at encouraging young people to get involved in politics -- and at defeating President Nixon, who was running for re-election. There were plans to end the tour with a huge rally at the Republican National Convention.

The F.B.I.'s timing is noteworthy. Lennon had been involved in high-profile antiwar activities going back to 1969, but the bureau did not formally open its investigation until January 1972 -- the year of Nixon's re-election campaign. In March, just as the presidential campaign was heating up, the Immigration and Naturalization Service refused to renew Lennon's visa, and began deportation proceedings. Nixon was re-elected in November, and a month later, the F.B.I. closed its investigation.

If Lennon was considering actively opposing Nixon's re-election, the spying and the threat of deportation had their intended effect. In May, he announced that he would not be part of any protest activities at the Republican National Convention, and he did not actively participate in the presidential campaign.

After revelations about the many domestic spying abuses of the 1960's and 1970's -- including the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr. -- new restrictions were put in place. But these protections are being eroded today, with the president's claim of sweeping new authority to pursue the war on terror.

Critics of today's domestic surveillance object largely on privacy grounds. They have focused far less on how easily government surveillance can become an instrument for the people in power to try to hold on to power. ''The U.S. vs. John Lennon'' would be a sobering film at any time, but it is particularly so right now. It is the story not only of one man being harassed, but of a democracy being undermined.

###

Well said, Mr. Cohen.

I'll review this movie soon as well.

Clinton sodomized in 9-11 movie

I've been away for a while and haven't had much time to post much lately because of school and the craziness before, during and after the wedding (A good, but busy kind of craziness!). However, I do have a lot on my mind from my time away from the blog, and I do plan on at least partially catching up.

In the meantime, I laughed today when I clicked on a link of an article to The New York Post about the upcoming movie, The Path to 9-11, which will air on ABC this Sunday and Monday. Bill Clinton appears to be pretty pissed, and it looks like he has good reason to be. According to the article in the Post, part of the movie details how Clinton was too distracted by the Lewinsky scandal to deal with bin Laden. What a truckload of shit.

The accurate history of what happened the summer the embassies were bombed was that Clinton was busy going after bin Laden following the attacks, trying to do his job, despite a witch hunt out to get him. Unfortunately, this coincided with the growing momentum to impeach the president. Republicans in Congress accused the president of trying to distract the American public with a missile attack against bin Laden. Self-righteous Republicans didn't want to hear stories about bin Laden - they wanted to get the president. Fortunately, the American public wasn't fooled - nearly 3/4 of Americans didn't want to see Clinton removed from office, and he wasn't, much to the frustration of Republicans. However, when viewed through a post-9-11 lens, this paragraph all seems too unbelievable to be true, but it IS true.

Here's a thought - maybe if the FBI didn't have dozens (and I've read hundreds in some places) of agents investigating a blow job (along with the majority of Congress), maybe the agency could have been protecting America. The same goes for Congress at the time. Call me crazy.

And here's a few more thoughts on the movie and right-wing myths. 9-11 happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. Idiots on the far right suffer from amnesia about this. The Clinton administration handed over all sorts of information to the incoming Bush administration on bin Laden and the growing threat of terrorism, but to no avail. The Bush cabal was too busy trying to figure out a way to repay favors to people who put Bush in office. Part of this repayment included massive tax cuts for the rich (that we still can't afford), instead of taking part of that money and adequately funding anti-terrorism programs.

If this movie is depicted as discussed in the Post article, it is a massive distortion and a disservice to the dead of 9-11, and to all Americans. The latter all too often relies on movies and pop culture to get depictions of history, and this movie will unfortunately play a part. That's pathetic and sad.

ABC has already stated that some scenes were dramatized in the movie. Really? What a shock.

Two other quick points. I'm not one of those people who believe Bush knew about 9-11. No president would knowingly permit such a brutal, ghastly attack. I do believe that if the agencies, including the CIA, FBI and NSA, hadn't had its collective head up its ass, they may have been prevented. Bush deserves some blame, no doubt, but so does Clinton, Congress and a host of other people. This is a story that will continue to emerge for years if not decades. But, I also laugh derisively at people who buy into the urban legend making its way around the Internet that states bin Laden could have been handed over to the U.S., but Clinton refused to take him into custody. This absurd right-wing myth that persists, facts be damned, and it's laughable.

And Republicans were so obsessed with bin Laden in the late 1990s (a total fucking lie), they why haven't they captured his ass since then? They've only had nearly 6 years, and 5 since 9-11. But, don't worry, people. I'm sure bin Laden is somewhere in Iraq.

I don't know what's worse - the obsession with Clinton in the late 90s, or the travesty that continues in Iraq, each and every day. Bush has got us in a real quagmire. There, I said the Q word. His debacle in the Middle East will wear the Scarlet Q for years to come, all at the cost of American blood.

My other point? Rupert Murdoch is no doubt laughing his extremist-right-wing ass off today. He owns the Post.

**

Anyway, I will watch the movie this Sunday and Monday, and report back how I feel about it. We are also having our post-wedding celebration in the Poconos this weekend, so I will no doubt have many great pictures to share. Oh, and a teeny little league called the NFL starts tonight, and I'm definitely ready for some football. And I'm even more ready for the NHL season. So much to write about, so little time. All for now.

Tune back tomorrow for a highly scientific analysis of who will have a better season, my Dallas Cowboys, or my wife's (and in-laws') Denver Broncos. Part of this proof will be in pictures!