I know, there’s sort of a catch-22 here, in that our main author hasn’t posted very often, but he doesn’t post because it seems no one’s reading, which means there’s little new material to draw readers… you get the picture :-/.

So, if we hear from enough people that there’s a desire for new material, maybe we’ll bring the blog back. In the meantime, check out the blogs in the blogroll for new content.

A Homeland Security Department spokesman was held Wednesday on felony charges of sexually preying on a detective posing as a 14-year-old girl through explicit online conversations. He was quickly suspended without pay from one of the nation’s top crime-fighting agencies.

The arrest of Brian J. Doyle, 55, raised doubts about the ability of an agency responsible for safeguarding the country to ensure the security credentials of its own people.

Gee, ya think?

Of course, it can’t get much worse than this, right?

Wrong.

When an Orlando mall security officer responded to a complaint about a man exposing himself to a girl in the food court, the suspect hurried out of the mall and ran through the parking lot.

The suspect was Frank Figueroa, then one of Florida’s highest-ranking federal law enforcement officers and the former head of a national program formed to target child sex predators.

In a total lack of coincidence, the previous article about Mr. Doyle notes that Operation Predator is run by the Department of Homeland Security:

Homeland Security also oversees an Operation Predator unit, which investigates child predators and pornographers.

That’s right, a guy who ran the DHS’ anti-child-trafficking program flashed a 16 year old girl…and it may not be the first time:

Homeland Security responded in writing Dec. 5, through Pamela J. Turner, assistant secretary for legislative affairs. Turner said Figueroa had been arrested “for similar behavior” in Amherst, N.Y., in 1977.

The case was dismissed, Turner wrote, “in the interest of justice because the perpetrator was never identified.”

At the time, Figueroa was an inspector with the Buffalo, N.Y., customs office.

Because of the earlier arrest, Turner wrote, ICE has initiated a review of all background investigations of employees who work on Operation Predator. She did not say whether a prior arrest would preclude work with the unit.

In Figueroa’s defense, he has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyer insists that the ‘77 case, which was dropped, is irrelevant. Our nation is founded on laws that protect people charged with crimes. In America, we are all innocent until proven guilty.

That, however, is the very point I’m making here. These two cases raise an important question: just who is Bush talking about giving unlimited spying power to? The Bill of Rights was written specifically because men are not angels. Brian Doyle and Frank Figueroa may well be innocent of the charges they are accused of, but the simple truth is that these crimes are committed, and we know they’re committed more widely than anyone really knows. What kind of havoc could a sexual predator, or a violent bigot, or a stalker looking for revenge wreak with the power of the DHS or NSA, and no one watching the watchmen?

What was that question about why people with nothing to hide might be afraid of Big Brother?

There is a reason that Congress was given the power to hold the executive branch accountable. There’s a reason FISA was created. There’s a reason the Founding Fathers warned their heirs — us — of the dangers that arise when we give leaders too much power during wartime. That reason is staring us in the face at this very moment — whether we travel down a road paved with the best of intentions or are undermined by those whose intents are evil from the beginning, the final destination ahead is always abuse, fear, and ultimately, tyranny.

(Crossposted from The Justice Log.)

(/) Roland X
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

From March, 2004:

The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency’s director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

I don’t see how it’s a good idea to hand over ports to Bin Laden’s pals.

Again, this is not about an “Arab company,” this is a company owned and controlled by the hereditary oligarchy of the UAE, many of whom, apparently, were Bin Laden’s jolly old pals.

To be clear, the company in question — Dubai Ports World — is literally government owned:

Frist’s move comes a day after two Republican governors, New York’s George Pataki and Maryland’s Robert Ehrlich, voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

As is often the case, the ever brilliant Digby nails the issue in a short and sweet summation:

He needs to be secretly spy on American citizens without a warrant and he needs to be able to hold them indefinitely in jail without a trial and he needs to be able to torture innocent people with impunity because we just can’t be too careful after 9/11.

But there’s no reason to go overboard by saying that we shouldn’t outsource our port management to a company owned by a state whose leaders have been known to hang out with bin Laden.

Perhaps the best way to put this is that the administration seems to trust the leaders of the United Arab Emirates more than the US congress or the secret FISA Court.

The Blue Phoenix
It’s time to rise

This week, we look into a topic that the East Valley Democrats will be addressing more regularly as November approaches: the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the heck of a job he’s been doing for California.

Let’s start with Ahnold’s supposed strength: the budget. I say supposed because even some conservatives are amazed at his penchant for borrowing and spending:

Only a few years into the current boom, some states are already making the same mistake of overspending. In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a budget increase for fiscal 2007 of 8.4 percent, which follows a 9.7 percent increase in 2006. This is the same governor who, in 2003, said, “if you spend, spend, spend, then you have tax, tax, tax, but all of a sudden you say, ‘Where are the jobs?’ Gone, gone, gone.”

In seeking reelection this year, Schwarzenegger has found a new interest in “spend, spend, spend.”

Not that he’ll “tax, tax, tax,” of course. He’d rather go into debt, debt, debt — to the tune of $68 billion of bond debt alone.

Then again, Mr. Economy can’t even keep his own campaign in the black. The Schwarzenegger campaign already owes $400,000. I’m sure that when you’re a multi-millionaire ex-superstar, you don’t have to worry about where your next $100-per-fillup Hummer is coming from, but running for office costs real money, as does running a state.

Of course, in the wake of his initiative debacle, he needs to buy back some good will. A pity he means to do so literally, with the taxpayers’ money, over the next two decades. These cynical efforts have shown some small success, but for a man who once loomed over California politics like a colossus, his still-anemic %40 approval rating shows that the majority of Californians see through this desperate change of kabuki masks. After all, it wasn’t that long ago that the Governator spoke proudly of “kicking the butts” of California’s nurses, teachers, police officers and firefighters.

Well, at least now we know he’s better as an actor than as Governor.

The Blue Phoenix
It’s time to rise

Roll Call votes from this week, from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/rollcallvotes.html

House:

ROLL CALL 3, H RES 648, 2/3 required, 1-Feb-2006, 5:01 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree
BILL TITLE: To eliminate floor privileges and access to Member exercise facilities for registered lobbyists who are former Members or officers of the House
TOTALS: Yea 379, Nay 50, Present 1, Not voting 3
Baca and Lewis voted Yea.

ROLL CALL 4, H RES 653, 1-Feb-2006, 5:11 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Relating to consideration of the bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 (a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95)
TOTALS: Yea 216, Nay 214, Not voting 3
Baca Nay, Lewis Yea

Senate:

On the Alito nomination:

Vote Number: 1 — Vote Date: January 30, 2006, 04:40 PM
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture On The Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of New Jersey, To Be An Associate Justice Of The Supreme Court)
Required For Majority: 3/5 — Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to
Vote Counts: YEAs 72, NAYs 25, Not Voting 3
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay

Vote Number: 2 — Vote Date: January 31, 2006, 11:01 AM
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice)
Required For Majority: 1/2 — Vote Result: Nomination Confirmed
Vote Counts: YEAs 58, NAYs 42
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay

On H.R. 4297 (Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act of 2005)

Vote Number: 3 — Vote Date: February 2, 2006, 06:45 PM
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA Conrad S.Amdt. 2729 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297)
Statement of Purpose: To provide revenue provisions.
Required For Majority: 3/5 — Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Vote Counts: YEAs 44, NAYs 52
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Vote Number: 4 — Vote Date: February 2, 2006, 07:16 PM
Question: On the Amendment (Grassley S.Amdt. 2731 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297)
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the Medicare part D prescription drug program.
Required For Majority: 1/2 — Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Vote Counts: YEAs 42, NAYs 54
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay

Vote Number: 5 — Vote Date: February 2, 2006, 07:34 PM
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA Re: Nelson (FL) S.Amdt. 2730 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297)
Statement of Purpose: To provide for necessary beneficiary protections in order to ensure access to coverage under the Medicare part D prescription drug program.
Required For Majority: 3/5 — Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Vote Counts: YEAs 52, NAYs 45, Not Voting 3
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Vote Number: 6 — Vote Date: February 2, 2006, 07:51 PM
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA Clinton S.Amdt. 2716 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297)
Statement of Purpose: To establish a congressional commission to examine the Federal, State, and local response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Region of the United States especially in the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and other areas impacted in the aftermath and make immediate corrective measures to improve such responses in the future.
Required For Majority: 3/5 — Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Vote Counts: YEAs 44, NAYs 53, Not Voting 3
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Vote Number: 7 — Vote Date: February 2, 2006, 08:37 PM
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA Dodd S.Amdt. 2735 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297)
Statement of Purpose: To support the health needs of our veterans and military personnel and reduce the deficit by making tax rates fairer for all Americans.
Required For Majority: 3/5 — Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Vote Counts: YEAs 44, NAYs 53, Not Voting 3
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Vote Number: 8 — Vote Date: February 2, 2006, 08:59 PM
Question: On the Motion (Motion to Waive CBA Reed S.Amdt. 2737 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297)
Statement of Purpose: To strengthen America’s military, to repeal the extension of tax rates for capital gains and dividends, to reduce the deficit, and for other purposes.
Required For Majority: 3/5 — Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Vote Counts: YEAs 44, NAYs 53, Not Voting 3
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Vote Number: 9 — Vote Date: February 2, 2006, 09:19 PM
Question: On the Amendment (Menendez S.Amdt. 2705 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297)
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that protecting middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax should be a higher priority for Congress in 2006 than extending a tax cut that does not expire until the end of 2008.
Required For Majority: 1/2 — Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Vote Counts: YEAs 73, NAYs 24, Not Voting 3
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Vote Number: 10 — Vote Date: February 2, 2006, 09:42 PM
Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 4297 As Amended)
Measure Title: A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(b) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Required For Majority: 1/2 — Vote Result: Bill Passed
Vote Counts: YEAs 66, NAYs 31, Not Voting 3
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

On H.R. 4659

Vote Number: 11 — Vote Date: February 2, 2006, 10:02 PM
Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 4659)
Measure Title: A bill to amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions of such Act.
Required For Majority: 1/2 — Vote Result: Bill Passed
Vote Counts: YEAs 95, NAYs 1, Not Voting 4
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

President Bush will use his new budget to propose cutting the size of the Army Reserve to its lowest level in three decades and stripping up to $4 billion next year from two fighter aircraft programs.

…

Under the plan, the authorized troop strength of the Army Reserve would drop from 205,000 - the current number of slots it is allowed - to 188,000, the number of soldiers it had at the end of 2005. Because of recruiting and other problems, the Army Reserve has been unable to fill its ranks to its authorized level.

Army leaders have already said they are taking a similar approach to shrinking the National Guard, which the Army is proposing to cut from its authorized level of 350,000 soldiers to 333,000, the number now on National Guard rolls.

Now I’m not going to weigh in on the fighter craft issue, since it involves some money juggling that might get our Air Force more F-22s in the long run. Considering the problems in Iraq and the shortages of manpower displayed by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I have to ask…what are they thinking?!?

Or, as one blogger said on AMERICAblog:

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Because you can’t recruit (oh, I wonder why?) your answer is to CUT the size of the military at a time war? WTF!! Tax cuts stay, we don’t need more money in a time of war!

Of course, this could be overreacting. After all, no less of an American than Tom “the Hammer” DeLay (indictments? what indictments?) maintained a vital perspective on this issue:

DeLay also said it was Congress’ duty in a time of war to significantly cut taxes. “Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes,” he said.

And thus we clearly see the face of the modern GOP. Nothing is more important than reducing the tax “burden” of the rich. Not security, not stability, not liberty, not justice, not even the centerpiece of their party platform for the past several years, the “War on Terror.” Then again, I suppose this represents Bush “staying the course” on his relationship with the National Guard.

The Blue Phoenix
It’s time to rise

The last two days have been amazing.

Early Thursday afternoon, we broke the news that Senator John Kerry would lead a filibuster against Judge Sam Alito if he could get 41 Senators to sustain the filibuster. Three hours later, CNN confirmed our story.

…

But even as Karl Rove was doing his dirty work, progressive activists like you were calling your Senators urging them to support John Kerry’s filibuster.

And one by one, Democratic Senators began to turn around.

http://democrats.com/alito-48

At the start of the day, only Dick Durbin and Debbie Stabenow supported Kerry and Kennedy. Just before noon, Hillary Clinton’s office called to say she supported us. Then Harry Reid came on board, along with Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden, Chris Dodd, and (I think) Chuck Schumer.

Most importantly, we even picked up Dianne Feinstein, who just yesterday said she opposed a filibuster.

Bold type theirs, italics mine.

This is simply amazing news. Senator Feinstein has really come through after some initial, disappointing opposition to the Alito filibuster, and I believe she deserves our praise for her willingness to oppose this radical transformation of the Supreme Court. Bravo.

Update: Senator Feinstein makes the statement on her own site.

The Blue Phoenix
It’s time to rise

Fighting words? You bet. We are your father’s Democrats — two-fisted, passionate, and ready to stand up for what we believe in. Formed around a core of activists united by the Dean candidacy, we have taken his call to the “Democratic wing of the Democratic party” (originally coined by Paul Wellstone) to heart. Setting triangulation and appeasement aside, we intend to let America know what we stand for and what we believe in, no apologies, no regrets. It’s time to stop giving plum government positions to corporate lobbyists and incompetent cronies. It’s time to end unilateral wars that distract us from America’s real enemies and put the focus back on the murderers who want us dead. It’s time to return our attention to a badly abused environment before it turns against us. It’s time to stop shoveling money at the obscenely rich and restore hope to the people who do the work in this country. It’s time to put an end to torture and illegal spying — violations of the fundamental principles America was founded on — and restore our republic’s good name. In short, it’s time to restore liberty and justice for all.

There are so many scandals and outrages to keep track of with the Bush administration and the state machines that emulate him, it can be hard to keep track of them all. To that end, I’m posting the first in what I hope is the beginning of a long series — the Daily Google. Google has become the activist’s best friend, allowing any ordinary citizen to find what politicians would rather shove down the memory hole with incredible ease. For the first Daily Google, I’m covering the major topic of the hour: FISA, and what Bush has done with it. (Note: Wikipedia is also a wonderful source of information, but it is a free Internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thus, its information — while almost always reliable, in my experience — should be viewed in that context.)

Recently, the New York Times revealed an NSA program that was eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant — a clear violation of FISA if true, and very possibly a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. One whistleblower claims that the breadth of the spying could go far beyond President Bush’s claim that his so-called terrorist surveillance program only monitors chats with al-Qaeda. A FISA judge quit over the scandal. Bush, clearly on the defensive, continues to claim he did nothing wrong:

“These are not phone calls within the United States,” Bush said. “This is a phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call into the United States.

The problem is, the otherwise-secret FISA court is well-known for its deference to the executive branch, or rather it was until Bush came into office:

The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court’s operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court’s activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that “no orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the requested authority” submitted by the government.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered “substantive modifications” took place in 2003 and 2004 — the most recent years for which public records are available.

The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years — the first outright rejection in the court’s history.

Some argue that the administration had to act quickly, but even if the violations are not systemic — and they certainly appear to be — there is an enormous hole in that rationale…the NSA can get warrants retroactively:

It turns out that FISA specifically empowers the Attorney General or his designee to start wiretapping on an emergency basis even without a warrant so long as a retroactive application is made for one “as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.” (see specific citation, here).

So the question remains: why did the FISA court, which had been almost uniformly accommodating to previous presidents (including Bush’s own father), start modifying and even rejecting this administration’s requests, especially after 9/11?

There are plenty of theories out there, ranging from lack of probable cause to the usual neocon suspects, “activist judges,” but the most likely answer seems to me to be that the administration wants to keep an eye on its critics. Of course, we’ll never know the truth — unless Rove can find some political advantage in revealing it, that is.

But that’s another Daily Google.

Until next time,

The Blue Phoenix
It’s time to rise