HaloScan.com - Comments

Glenn,

I thought that you'd be very interested in this latest Zogby's poll regarding:

9/11 + 5 finds a nation badly divided as GOPers back U.S. war on terror, wiretapping, and Saddam's role in 9/11; Dems, Indies suspicious of all three
Mad Dog | 09.06.06 - 7:48 pm | #

What, if any, current or former Bush administration officials have been involved in the marketing strategy for ABC's "docuddrama"? The tactics used to promote the film seem strkingly similar to those of the RNC.
undecided | 09.06.06 - 7:59 pm | #

I think you might have meant to link to this, Glenn.
http://thinkprogress.org/? tag=Pa...tag=Path+to+911

It's the main Path to 9/11 page at Think Progress.
ej | 09.06.06 - 8:26 pm | #

ABC contends that the movie is a "composite" of real events and dramatized ones.

Just like cowshit is a composite of grass and grain.
F'in Librul | 09.06.06 - 8:26 pm | #

Glenn said:

"FDL is starting a book imprint, and the first book will be one on the Valerie Plame affair, by Marcy Wheeler."

In case someone missed the significance, Marcy is otherwise known as Emptywheel, the blogster of much renown and certainly known as one of the foremost bloggers extraordinaire on the Plame Scandal. Her home base is over at The Next Hurrah
Mad Dog | 09.06.06 - 8:27 pm | #

I e-mailed ABC through the Center for American Progress link they provided in their daily newsletter.

Shades of Sinclair '94?
Tom | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 8:30 pm | #

Weisman's story in the Post gets everything backwards about the different GOP proposals.

He perpetuates the myth that Specter's bill gives the administration less than the DeWine bill does-- Specter's bill actually is a more sweeping capitulation, IMHO. He even gets the chronology wrong: DeWine's bill came before the latest Specter "compromise."

The so-called "splintering" Weisman portrays as a weakness in the GOP legislative strategy is actually a tactical strength. The White House openly supports several bills at once. The shotgun provisions later can be melded in some 11th-hour conference immediately before the election.

I watched most of the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing. Notably, the Democrats were not AWOL, and some cogently pressed the case that no such sweeping amendments are needed in FISA. That is more significant to me than the phony drama about the different GOP factions.

The NYT story about the court hearing in New York indicates that Judge Gerard Lynch, while concerned about standing, pressed the DOJ on the legal merits. Lynch is obviously much more interested in the FISA violations than the First and Fourth Amendment issues.

FYI, see other comments in an Orin Kerr post here.
Just an Observer | 09.06.06 - 8:35 pm | #

eisman's story in the Post gets everything backwards about the different GOP proposals.

JAO - I was going to insert a comment about the inaccuracies in Weisman's story, but since I didn't have the time to really document them (4 posts plus a Salon article today will do that), I didn't want to just off-handedly accuse him of that. But you are so right, and I have seen enough from him now to really find his reporting suspect (and, like most unreliable jouranlists, he receives criticisms very poorly).
Glenn Greenwald | 09.06.06 - 8:43 pm | #

Just an Observer:

Can you give us some analysis on what these other proposed bills would do?

Also, I note that last time Glenn posted on FISA, Bart kept saying that numbers captured from Al Qaeda sources, though potentially important enough to call for wiretaps, did not have enough probable cause to rate a FISA warrant. What is your opinion on that?

And I know you've been asked this before, but given your wish list for a FISA bill, what would you want?
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 9:20 pm | #

Glenn:

Publicly showcasing the most dangerous and prized al-Qaida suspects, as the White House did Wednesday, has already provoked exactly the visceral reminders of the 9/11 attacks that the administration believes will provide it the most political punch.

Now you are catching on...

However, you missed the kicker in the President's speech where he claims that CIA broke three of the top planners and exposed multiple planned attacks on the United States.

The transfer of these detainees to Guantánamo is also certain to provide the administration with a powerful new weapon as Congress debates various legislative proposals designed to regulate military commissions and interrogation techniques in the wake of the Hamdan ruling. The Bush administration is insisting that Congress do nothing more than simply endorse, legislatively, the military commissions that the administration already created.

Very good! That is exactly what they are doing.

The President punctuated his call for passage of this bill with the argument that "the victims of 9/11 have waited long enough for justice" with several of those survivors in the audience.

This is brilliant theater, especially when contrasted to the Donkey knee jerk opposition to anything the White House puts out. My only question is why the White House stayed passive for so many months instead of doing this long ago...

The administration is also seeking authorization for the CIA to employ controversial interrogation techniques such as prolonged sleep deprivation and waterboarding -- a policy Vice President Cheney in particular has fought for fiercely on Capitol Hill.

That is why this military manual is not a capitulation. The CIA will do the coercive interrogations like they did when they broke the top planners of al Qaeda.

Unsurprisingly, the White House has chosen the ideal time to politically pressure Congress in hopes of regaining some of the ground it lost in the watershed Hamdan decision. That ruling forced an end to its policy of holding detainees at "black sites."

Now you are wandering off again.

First, the Hamden decision was expressly limited to procedural rights for military commissions. While I would not put it past Kennedy to go further in a future case, Hamdan does not do so.

Next, you were right when you said this was a political move to pressure the Senate to pass a bill reversing Hamdan and ratify the military commissions. The CIA has long since squeezed all actionable intelligence out of these dozen detainees so there was no reason to press the point.

(2) A new blog -- Open Letter to ABC -- has been created for the purpose of centralizing commentary, objections and action concerning ABC's 9/11 propaganda film. It was just begun today and already has excellent resources for protesting this film. One of the most astonishing and incriminating facts -- and it's a hefty competition -- is that ABC has freely distributed copies of the film for pre-screening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh along with all sorts of blogospheric versions of him, but refuses to furnish copies to those it smears, such as Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger, and also refused to provide copies to any bloggers unlikely to endorse its biases.

This is a marketing move (not a political one) which is working tremendously. Having the conservative media echo chamber boost this mini series for free is the equivalent of millions of dollars of free advertising. In contrast, exactly what marketing advantage would accrue from releasing this video to the Clintonistas and their supporters to savage?
Bart | 09.06.06 - 9:34 pm | #

dana's a man, man!
oops | 09.06.06 - 9:56 pm | #

September 06, 2006
Understanding Bush's Speech
A source within the military forwards the following observations on Bush's speech:

The "old media" and Drudge have it all wrong. Bush is not reversing course and they are not getting "Geneva Rights."
Today, the President has wagered all of his "political chips" and sided with the uniformed Combat Arms Branches instead of the JAG Chiefs.

First, whenever the President brings up that the illegal combatants are not uniform, that is a clear sign to those of us in the military that these individuals are not covered by Geneva.

Second, he is very clear that the CIA Detention program remains alive and well. ONLY after all information is obtained will they be turned over to DOD for military trial. Then they will face a death sentence.

Third, the President directly attacks the opinion by SCOTUS.

Lastly, Congress is now up against the wall. There is now a "face" that the public will see in regards to this legislation. IF Congress does not pass legislation, these 14 detainees tied to 9/11 will not receive ultimate Justice. What member of Congress wants to argue for them?

This was indeed a brilliant maneuver by Bush and I am thankful that he is running with it.

This sounds right to me. I'm not so sure Bush "put one over on the media" so much as they may have just flat out missed the story.

UPDATE: Sure enough, the White House has already issued the following email titled "Setting the Record Straight:"

*The President's Legislation Specifically Authorizes The Creation Of Military Commissions To Try These Suspected Terrorists For War Crimes. The Bill ensures that these commissions are established in a way that protects our national security and ensures a full and fair trial for the accused.
* Detainees Have Been Transferred To The Custody Of The Department Of Defense, At The U.S. Naval Base At Guantanamo Bay.

* Neither The President's Proposed Legislation Nor The Detainees' Transfer To Guantanamo Gives The Detainees POW Status. [emphasis added]

Posted by Tom Bevan

http:// www.realclearpolitics.com...shs_speech.html
Bart | 09.06.06 - 9:58 pm | #

Wow, the radical right has been wrong once again. What does that make them, 9,000 for 9,000 now? I've lost count!

We need a database to keep track of how often they've been wrong hehe.

I saw Der Fuhrer's speech where he was rhetorically lurching about, saying all kinds of amazing things. It was really surreal. He basically admitted to being in breach of the Geneva Convention. And then gave the Congress the homework of legalizing his ass in the next 30 days. Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

He's either even more delusional than we thought, more drugged out of his mind than we thought, or the GOP is so desperate they'll say anything at all at this point. I can't decide which.
Kurt | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 10:00 pm | #

Bartbarian, Boy Lawyer, wonders, either dumbly or rhetorically, "My only question is why the White House stayed passive for so many months instead of doing this long ago..."

Because they knew their gulag was illegal and abhorrent to anyone with a scintilla of respect for due process, rule of law, or simple human decency. They didn't want to admit to their criminal behavior until they could figure out a semi-plausible spin to make the poison go down easier. They're lawless brutes, but the're smart enough to be wary of the American public, and to worry at what act of theirs will be the breaking point which will unleash the pent up fury of a free people finally sickened at the crimes being committed in our name.

Later, Boy Lawyer gloats, about ABC's mendacious slander of Bill Clinton, "This is a marketing move (not a political one) which is working tremendously. Having the conservative media echo chamber boost this mini series for free is the equivalent of millions of dollars of free advertising. In contrast, exactly what marketing advantage would accrue from releasing this video to the Clintonistas and their supporters to savage?"

No concern about a work of fiction being presented as fact, Bartelboy (sic)? No chagrin at the pure deception necessary to telling this story as the only way to make Bush look less a pathetic failure in his dealing with the terrorist problem?

I guess an officer of the court who supports torture can hardly be expected to have any respect for truth, can he?
Robert1014 | 09.06.06 - 10:01 pm | #

Here is the key portion of the Bush speech which you all seem to be missing...

Zubaydah told us that Al Qaeda operatives were planning to launch an attack in the United States and provided physical descriptions of the operatives and information on their general location. Based on the information he provided, the operatives were detained; one, while traveling to the United States.

We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives. But he stopped talking.

As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so, the CIA used an alternative set of procedures.

These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively, and determined them to be lawful.

I cannot describe the specific methods used. I think you understand why. If I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough and they were safe and lawful and necessary.

Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key Al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th.

For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks, a terrorist named Ramzi Binalshibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of Binalshibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Once in our custody, KSM was questioned by the CIA using these procedures. And he soon provided information that helped us stop another planned attack on the United States. ***

After Hambali's arrest, KSM was questioned again. He identified Hambali's brother as the leader of a JI cell and Hambali's conduit for communications with al Qaeda. Hambali's brother was soon captured in Pakistan, and in turn led us to a cell of 17 Southeast Asian JI operatives. When confronted with the news that his terror cell had been broken up, Hambali admitted that the operatives were being groomed at KSM's request for attacks inside the United States, probably using airplanes. During questioning, KSM also provided many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans.

For example, he described the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the United States and how operatives were directed to carry them out. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows. KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent, and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazeed. ***

These are some of the plots that have been stopped because of the information of this vital program.

Terrorists held in CIA custody have also provided information that helped stop the planned strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti. They were going to use an explosive-laden water tanker. They've helped stop a planned attack on U.S. -- on the U.S. consulate in Karachi using car bombs and motorcycle bombs. And they helped stop a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into Heathrow or the Canary Wharf in London.

We're getting vital information necessary to do our jobs, and that's protect the American people and our allies.

Information from terrorists in CIA custody has played a role in the capture or questioning of nearly every senior al Qaeda member or associate detained by the U.S. and its allies since this program began.

By providing everything from initial leads to photo identifications, to precise locations of where terrorists were hiding, this program has helped us to take potential mass murderers off the streets before they were able to kill.

Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland. By giving us information about terrorist plans we could not get anywhere else, this program has saved innocent lives.

There is nothing at all "surreal" about this speech.

This is a body blow to the argument that coercive techniques you call "torture" is ineffective in gaining useful intelligence.

Rather, cranking up the pressure was key in breaking these terrorist leaders and rolling up the rest.
Bart | 09.06.06 - 10:08 pm | #

emptywheel did an excellent job of providing a rational guide to Jason Leopold's fabrications, sparing Bush admin critics even more embarrassment than we suffered over that malarkey.
truth machine | 09.06.06 - 10:10 pm | #

Glenn,

You probably won't miss me, but I have decided to un-subscribe to your blog now that you're constantly blogging at Salon despite the fact that they don't let people read stuff on their website.

I've been reading for months. I helped promote your book by hanging up flyers in my neighborhood. I bought 2 copies to give away.

It's not fair to your readers. Either post here or post somewhere public and not behind a firewall.
Anonymous | 09.06.06 - 10:24 pm | #

Note how HWSNBN acts as if Bush doesn't have a history of lying? How he points to Bush's use of the word "admitted" as if getting HWSNBN to admit he is a child molester would be difficult if we tortured him? Hell, we could get HWSNBN to admit to having committed suicide under enough torture. But it wouldn't make it so.

Without the ability to verify the story that Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger, we can no longer take Bush at his word.
an awake citizen | 09.06.06 - 10:27 pm | #

Wow, I didn't realize Gerard Lynch was the judge in the SDNY case. That's a very fortunate draw. Lynch was my criminal law professor at Columbia. He's as smart as they come. Indeed, rumor has it that he graduated from Columbia with one of the highest GPAs of anyone ever. And not only is he brilliant, but his is one of the most competitive clerkship draws in the country. If he ends up writing an opinion striking down the NSA program, I guarantee you it will be top notch. I think the only question is whether he'll get to the merits (i.e. whether he'll get past the standing issue).
Anonymous Liberal | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 10:33 pm | #

Bartelboy's approving quotation of Li'l Butch's apologia for torture simply demonstrates he is unfit to be an officer of the court: I would even say this support for torture as an official tactic of our nation would seem to be a violation of professional ethics.

We don't prohibit cruel and unusual punishment--torture--because it can't sometimes work, but because it is appalling and inhumane. We don't refrain from certain behaviors merely because there may be laws which prohibit them; we write laws prohibiting them in recognition that certain behaviors are instrinsically "wrong," and cannot be countenanced by any civilized persons or nations.

Bart, Boy Lawyer, thinks such vile behavior is "saving us," and he cannot recognize that with every degree to which we become inured to such acts committed by our nation, to the increasing extent we come to accept or even approve such monstrousness, we have already lost and have surrendered ourselves to ignominy and depravity. In the enduring comedy of humanity's futile history, we have, as have so many others before us, become that which we decry.
Robert1014 | 09.06.06 - 10:36 pm | #

Another 650th.

Anybody who's ever tried to get a book published knows what a disgusting place the publishing industry is. I try to buy some of the books by authors I like (that happen to survive the publishing process) but it would be so much better to eliminate the intermediaries.
PhilK | 09.06.06 - 10:38 pm | #

Just like cowshit is a composite of grass and grain.
F'in Librul | 09.06.06 - 8:26 pm | #

Classic.

ROFL
RAC | 09.06.06 - 10:48 pm | #

I keep thinking that if my old uncle (figuratively speaking) Allen Ginsberg were still with us, he'd be glad to come here with his harmonium and with Peter by his side, and help us ease Bart's tortured soul. It would truly be a mitzvah, one of many the old man did in his lifetime, and has no doubt inspired since his departure. If only I had the gift myself....

Peace, Bart. as-Salaam aleichem, Shalom aleikum. I wish you better eyes, and a truer heart.
William Timberman | 09.06.06 - 10:53 pm | #

When a Democratic president breaks the law, the Reublican solution is impeachment.

When a Republican president breaks the law, the Republican solution is, to make law breaking legal, and let him off the hook.
AkaDad | 09.06.06 - 10:56 pm | #

You would think by now, that I would learn to use the preview feature.
AkaDad | 09.06.06 - 10:58 pm | #

It's truly disgraceful that an American, any American, would advocate the torture of innocents as Bart does.

Although vile and disgusting Bart serves as a warning that the real terrorists, the real danger to our country is already here and plotting openly against our liberty.
js | 09.06.06 - 11:05 pm | #

We don't prohibit cruel and unusual punishment--torture--because it can't sometimes work, but because it is appalling and inhumane.

We also prohibit it because we don't want to be tortured. Bart should think about that.
truth machine | 09.06.06 - 11:09 pm | #

Spot on, truth machine.

And, isn't it funny how those advocating cruel treatment can never see themselves being subjected to such abuse? They must have an awful certainty of their own righteousness, or an incredible naivete as to the infallibility of the justice system or the impartiality of the authorities. Bart, Boy Lawyer, being an officer of the court, certainly can't be so obtuse, can he?

Oh, wait...he supports Li'l Butch's lying in furtherance of criminal acts and cheerleads for torture, so apparently he can be.
Robert1014 | 09.06.06 - 11:26 pm | #

while the rightards are busy blaming Clinton for 9/11 and skullfucking the 9/11 victims to push their radical warmongering agenda, let's never let them forget what their false idol George W. Bush said just six months after 9/11, on 13 March 2002:

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.... And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

r€nato | 09.06.06 - 11:32 pm | #

Bartleby quoted:

"Here is the key portion of the Bush speech which you all seem to be missing......

"Zubaydah told us that Al Qaeda operatives were planning to launch an attack in the United States and provided physical descriptions of"

Zubaydah was arrested in 2002. So what speech are you quoting? Is this something recent?
jameskarkoski | 09.06.06 - 11:38 pm | #

Enlightened Layperson,

[Rant about HaloScan: I carefully included a lot of links in this comment but had to delete them to satisfy its brain-dead requirements.]

You asked for an analysis of the competing proposals to amend FISA. These are just the major points about the pending legislation. I am leaving out details, and may accidently omit something important. You might also be interested in analysis from the Center for Democracy and Technology and the ACLU. The Library of COngress' Thomas site provides status and non-partisan analysis by CRS, but beware lack of timeliness when bills are being marked up in committee or amended on the floor. (For example, the CRS summary of the Specter bill is far out of date; it describes the as-introduced version that bears no resemblance to the current bill as amended in committee but not yet reported.) Glenn also has written analyses of some of these bills here.

I. Republican-sponsored bills

A. The current Specter bill in the Senate, S 2453, as amended in committee:

1) Repeal the core requirement of FISA that its procedures and the criminal Wiretap Act (Title III) "shall be the exlusive means" for conducting electronic surveillance. The bill essentially makes FISA optional overall, by explicitly deferring to the President's "inherent" constitutional authority instead.

2) Authorize (but not require) the President to submit the current NSA surveillance program to review and blessing by the FISA courts. This review effectively would be limited to Fourth Amendment issues. The separation-of-powers issues deriving from FISA itself would not be reviewed, because Congress already would have capitulated in Step 1) above.

3) Refer all third-party court challenges to intelligence-surveillance programs to the FISA courts, instead of the ordinary District Courts such as those of Judge Taylor in Detroit, Judge Lynch in New York or Judge Walker in San Francisco, which now have several cases before them. I am uncertain of what effect this would have on Judge Taylor's case, since she already has ruled against the program and issued an injunction.

4) Make some fundamental changes to the definitions within FISA, most importantly removing the current provision that makes FISA apply to any intelligence surveillance acquired within the United States, regardless of who the target is. This apparently would have the effect of authorizing warrantless surveillance beyond that now reported to take place under the NSA program.

B. The DeWine bill in the Senate, S 2455:

1) Essentially ratify the current general NSA program by authorizing such warrantless surveillance within FISA.

2) For the absence of judicial review by the FISA courts of warrant applications, substitute general oversight by the congressional Intelligence committees.

C. The Wilson bill in the House, HR 5825, cosponsored by GOP committee chairmen there.

1) Make changes to FISA's definitions, including key changes identical to those in Specter's bill (see above).

2) Authorize within FISA a program of warrantless surveillance similar to that reported to occur in the NSA program today. This provision is similar but not identical to the "ratification" proposed in the DeWine bill. The Wilson bill also calls for general congressional oversight in lieu of individual warrants.

II. Democratic bills

A. The Feinstein bill in the Senate, S 3001, also sponsored by Specter but only nominally.

1) Reaffirm that FISA and Title III procedures "shall be the exclusive means" for conducting surveillance, eliminating the chance that the AUMF might be construed to authorize warrantless surveillance that FISA prohibits.

2) Provide increased flexibility in FISA's current "emergency" provisions for beginning surveillance before warrants are issued, and increasing the emergency period from the current one-stage provision of three days to a two-phase provision of three days at first, with the final warrant application not due for seven days. The greater flexibility within the three days is offset by detailed oversight reports to Congress and the FISA courts.

3) Increase the resources for processing these individual FISA warrants.

4) Make the current provision allowing 15 days of warrantless surveillance immediately following a declaration of war also apply to 15 days following a national emergency or passage of an AUMF, as defined by the War Powers Act.

B. The Harman bill in the House, HR 5371, cosponsored by many fellow Democrats.

1) Reaffirm that FISA and Title III provisions are the "exclusive means" for conducting surveillance. This language is similar not identical to that in the Feinstein bill.

2) Require the President to report to the Intelligence committees specific recommendations to ensure that such individual warrants can be processed efficiently, including emergency warrant applications.

3) Authorize "such sums as may be necessary" for efficient processing of FISA warrants.
Just an Observer | 09.06.06 - 11:40 pm | #

I found it a bit odd that the President received a standing ovation when he announced the names of detainees that had been transferred to Guantanamo for prosecution. Isn't he the same person that has been preventing this type of prosecution? It seems to me that saying "It's about time" would be the more appropriate response to this announcement. The only thing we've gained from the delay of this outcome is the ire of much of the world and a loss of the moral authority that 9/11 most certainly provided.

The fact that these "high profile" names were released...and that one might presume that these individuals will be paraded in the media for all to see...almost immediately after the President and the GOP have just rolled out their campaign strategy for the November midterm election seems all too convenient. Granted, it may well be coincidental but I'm not convinced. Nothing would serve the President better than having Americans see some "tangible" results of our effort to fight the war on terror.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com
Daniel DiRito | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 11:49 pm | #

Enlightened Layperson,

[Rant about HaloScan: I carefully included a lot of links in this comment but had to delete them to satisfy its brain-dead requirements.]

It's an annoyance JaO, due to the spam filtering, but in comparison to the spamming we'd get without it, you really appreciate in more than you realize. Endless links to XXX sites and male enhancement aids would annoy us all even more.
Anonymous | 09.06.06 - 11:58 pm | #

RE: Bart's quote for George Bush's speech justifying torture

First of all, Bush neglects to mention any of the things we "learned" from interrogation that were not true (like the ones used to justify the invasion of Iraq).

Second, given his overall record, I am not prepared to take him at his word, absent independent proof. How many terrorist plots have there been now that were "more aspirational than operational?"

Third, the timing is obviously no coincidence. Bush is throwing in the kitchen sink. He is also using a well-known technique of making maximal allegations for purposes of maximum impact. Qualifications, limitations, and even retractions later appear, but they do not make as strong or lasting impression as the original allegation.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 12:09 am | #

bart quotes an associate...
The "old media" and Drudge have it all wrong. Bush is not reversing course and they are not getting "Geneva Rights."
Today, the President has wagered all of his "political chips" and sided with the uniformed Combat Arms Branches instead of the JAG Chiefs.
First, whenever the President brings up that the illegal combatants are not uniform, that is a clear sign to those of us in the military that these individuals are not covered by Geneva.
Second, he is very clear that the CIA Detention program remains alive and well. ONLY after all information is obtained will they be turned over to DOD for military trial. Then they will face a death sentence.
Third, the President directly attacks the opinion by SCOTUS.
Lastly, Congress is now up against the wall. There is now a "face" that the public will see in regards to this legislation. IF Congress does not pass legislation, these 14 detainees tied to 9/11 will not receive ultimate Justice. What member of Congress wants to argue for them?

This was indeed a brilliant maneuver by Bush and I am thankful that he is running with it.

I think bart's connection is correct about one thing, this speech does play well to the administration's base of support. However, as Daniel DeRito indicates above, it is a de facto concession to administration critics in regards to the stonewalling that has prevailed to date. Bush finally had to come out and explain something about what they've been up to these past 4 years. By doing so in bellicose macho language, he takes care of the appearance of capitulation, but their political need is all too obvious at this point. I believe Bush was telling a fair amount of the truth in his recitation of "coersion" successes. But, what a bunch of slobbering suck-dicks he believes we average Americans are. And bart and moreso, his contact still in the military, what complete contempt they have for the average civilian. That all and any means to preserve us from our own frailty and humanity will be applauded by us. That we should applaud the destruction of our nation's stature in the world, because it "keeps us safe". Look I fucking hate the sight of human brain tissue leaking out from a ruptured skull/dura. I never wanted to see such a thing, and never want to again. But if the choice is to be party to this chest-thumping authoritarian juggernaut of dishonor, then no. Blood stops running when it dries you know. It doesn't take that long, only a few minutes after it leaves a body.
This is the nut of why I have such trouble responding cogently to bart's comments. His thoroughgoing contempt for everyone who isn't either marching in lockstep with him, or cooing appropriate supportive sweetnesses from the sidelines. Life is short and briefly beautiful, but there is no point in "loving" it the way a drunk loves a bottle. It's the coward's essence of everything Un-American to crave a "safety" delivered to us in this way.
Fluffy | 09.07.06 - 12:18 am | #

They must have an awful certainty of their own righteousness

They've got God on their side.
truth machine | 09.07.06 - 12:19 am | #

my (too lengthy) letter to my ABC affil...

Dear [abc affil-not o&o--general manager],

I just saw a segment on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" which presented several clips from ABC's upcoming miniseries "The Path to 9/11." From what I saw of the series and from the comments of an NSC adviser and a 9/11 commission member, I am convinced that your miniseries is a blatantly inaccurate depiction of events leading up to the attack on America. I'd like you to reconsider airing the program.

"The Path to 9/11" appears to be a hit-piece on America, an attempt to re-write history and influence the upcoming elections. Is that what you signed on for? Dramatic license is one thing, but this miniseries seems intent on distorting the political debate by specifically portraying the Democrats as soft on terror, unable to make decisions, preoccupied with legalisms. The actual scenes in the miniseries that I have seen present such views with all of the subtlety of a sledgehammer. But this sort of "docudrama" is simply false--the facts run counter to the drama, and they are especially disingenuous given the astounding failures of the Bush administration to capture Bin Laden over these last five years.

I am not surprised that a conservative media conglomerate like Disney would prefer a Republican Congress that will support their push for endless copyright protection and a relaxation of media regulations--but you have the choice of taking your station in a different direction.

I understand that you won't be receiving any advertising revenue during the airing, though I'm sure that Disney is compensating you for this loss. I will, however, be contacting a few of your regular advertisers, the one's who normally pay into your Sunday and Monday primetime slots, and will be letting them know that their brands will suffer. I'm not going to support these kinds of attacks on my country.

Best regards,
Paul | 09.07.06 - 12:20 am | #

But, what a bunch of slobbering suck-dicks he believes we average Americans are.

Hey, let barf, shitter, and diddlycocks speak for themselves.
truth machine | 09.07.06 - 12:24 am | #

I'd like to recommend Joe Margulie's wonderful book, Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power. Joseph Margulies, a Minneapolis lawyer and civil rights activist, served as lead counsel in Rasul v. Bush, and successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to extend the right of judicial review to all prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

I met Joe in Texas as worked to stop the execution of Bettie Beets in 2000, a 62-year-old woman I had befriended and visited on TX death row. George Bush would neither show mercy for this brain-damaged deaf woman, nor follow the law for special review for battered women in Texas prisons.

Her supporters found out about Gov. Bush's contempt for law. Bush considered this administrative law to be just a resolution, not a real law. So Bettie went to her death without the review that would have revealed her battered woman status and brain injury.

The CNN reporter picked up the meme on execution night, and asked me, "But isn't this just a resolution?" I'm still angry at Bush for his contempt for law and betrayal of the Constitution. We are fortunate to have heroes like Joe Margulies who fight for our rights.
-mary robinson
mrobinsong | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 12:25 am | #

ABC propoganda has plenty of help at the Wapo. David Broder seriously needs to retire. His column calling on the media to apologize to Rove is ludicrous at best. He has to be best example of the bubble surrounding the Washington media. He admits that he hasn't written much about the Plame affair. It must be too complicated for him to wrap his puny little brain around. The way this administration has delt with the media, orchestrated by Rove......and he's asking the media to admit they were wrong, when the whole story behind this sordid affair certainly hasn't been told yet. So Rove was able to cover his ass and now Broder wants the media to kiss it.
badick | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 12:33 am | #

Glenn - Bush did not mention where the facilities the high value prisoners were located for security purposes. He did not indicate Eastern Europe as you say in your post. Specifying the location could endanger the lives of our personnel and those of allied personnel as well as cause political problems for allies, precisely the reasons why Dana Priest's story should not have been published in the first place.

The Mary McCarthy saga is by no means done unless she is finished testifying before a grand jury or been exonerated. I have seen no announcement of either event. If you have, please share.

You fail to note in your summary of the NY Times article that the Judge registered surprise that the government did not stipulate that the TSP violated FISA. A significant and interesting detail.

As Arne would say, Cheers
daleyrocks | 09.07.06 - 12:41 am | #

The hysteria from the left over the imagined smearing of Clinton by the ABC 9/11 special - does that mean it's getting closer to what Sandy Burglar stuffed down his pants?

Does Podesta at Thinkprogress know?
daleyrocks | 09.07.06 - 12:44 am | #

It's an annoyance JaO, due to the spam filtering, but in comparison to the spamming we'd get without it, you really appreciate in more than you realize. Endless links to XXX sites and male enhancement aids would annoy us all even more.

I must disagree.

We have gone from trading freedom for safety to trading freedom for less annoyances. Can we get any softer? The situation may be the best of two bad choices but to willingly sacrifice a well researched and footnoted post for the potential of less "spam" is a wonderful symbol of why we find ourselves in this current mess.

jao -- good post.
thelastnamechosen | 09.07.06 - 12:45 am | #

Paul - It's too bad you can't be specific about which clips or what the inaccuracies were isn't it?
daleyrocks | 09.07.06 - 12:52 am | #

Isn't Abu Zubaydah the one who Ron Suskind said was mentally ill in The One Percent Doctrine? I think Suskind also mentioned in an interview that when we started torturing Zubaydah is when he came up all kinds of made up plots. These plots were driving forces behind many of the terror alerts before the 2004 election. On a side note, does anyone else find it odd that once the election was over we haven't had even one change to the color coded terrorist alert status?

If Suskind is correct, Zubaydah seems an odd choice to make the poster boy for the effectiveness of "aggressive" questioning techniques and as the reason we stopped numerous terrorist plots.

Geekmouth
Geekmouth | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 1:08 am | #

you're constantly blogging at Salon despite the fact that they don't let people read stuff on their website.

You are mistaken. Reading their stuff is as easy as watching a commercial.
PhilK | 09.07.06 - 1:26 am | #

daleyrocks: You fail to note in your summary of the NY Times article that the Judge registered surprise that the government did not stipulate that the TSP violated FISA. A significant and interesting detail.

DOJ has never stipulated that FISA was "violated," because its theory of statutory interpretation is that the AUMF meets an internal exception to FISA. AG Gonzales, however, has stated unambiguously that, absent that AUMF theory, FISA warrants would be required for the surveillance in the NSA program.

In your own snarky but misleading comment, you fail to note what the NYT reported about the judge's view of that same AUMF theory: "'I’m not too impressed by that one,' he said."

A significant and interesting detail, indeed.
Just an Observer | 09.07.06 - 1:32 am | #

OT: I just learned that Richard Armitage, supposedly "not a partisan gunslinger", signed the 1998 PNAC letter to Bill Clinton calling for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power". The others who signed it were Abrams, Bennett, Bolton, Fukuyama, Khalilzad, Kristol, Perle, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.
truth machine | 09.07.06 - 1:43 am | #

JAO - It's not my blog. Tell Glenn to add it if you've got a complaint. Have you read their brief in this case or the transcript of the oral arguments? Are you certain they are relying on the AUMF argument if the standing issue is resolved?

The FISA violation issue is important because everyone is under the impression, including apparently the Judge, theat the Administration has admitted to violating FISA. Not so much snark as fighting the dishonest media hype.
daleyrocks | 09.07.06 - 1:43 am | #

HWSNBN sez:

UPDATE: Sure enough, the White House has already issued the following email titled "Setting the Record Straight:"

*The President's Legislation Specifically Authorizes The Creation Of Military Commissions To Try These Suspected Terrorists For War Crimes. The Bill ensures that these commissions are established in a way that protects our national security and ensures a full and fair trial for the accused.

In typical fashion, the maladministration "sets the record" straight with a lie.

The main point of the Hamdan decision was not that Dubya's "military commissions" were illegal per se, but rather that the Doofus-In-Chief couldn't ignore what Congress already did say as to how Hamdan could be tried. If there had been no Congressional provision for such trials, it's possible the Supreme Court might have said that Dubya was entitled to make up his own laws out of necessity. But since Congress had specified how such trials must take place, Dubya was bound to follow the law (what a novel concept!).

These people may be tried in criminal court, or by means of courts martial. Dubya doesn't get to make up his own rules.

The suggestion that without this n new legislation they couldn't be tried is simply hogwash and persiflage.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 1:45 am | #

Robert1014:

Later, Boy Lawyer gloats, about ABC's mendacious slander of Bill Clinton, "This is a marketing move (not a political one) which is working tremendously. Having the conservative media echo chamber boost this mini series for free is the equivalent of millions of dollars of free advertising. In contrast, exactly what marketing advantage would accrue from releasing this video to the Clintonistas and their supporters to savage?"

HWSNBN is just plain stoopid here. There's no money to be made from the real advertisers, because ABC has decided to run it without commercials! Getting people to watch it doesn't help their advertising bottom line at all. This crapola about "free advertising" is just a way of saying that they're trying to get as many people as possible to watch their propaganda neat and straight. Their motives for doing so have to be with something else than the bottom line.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 1:50 am | #

HWSNBN sees things that no one else can see:

This is a body blow to the argument that coercive techniques you call "torture" is ineffective in gaining useful intelligence.

Dubya didn't say a word about the interrogations (which he alleges produced such stellar results) being "coercive". That's a fact.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 1:52 am | #

Arne - Bottom line comes after initial showing with rebroadcasts, homesales, etc. Free distribution to schools may actually expand market.
daleyrocks | 09.07.06 - 1:58 am | #

HWSNBN quoting the eedjit Dubya:

"For example, he described the design of planned attacks on buildings inside the United States and how operatives were directed to carry them out. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent the people trapped above from escaping out the windows."

Hell, reach for the sky. Top floor. Then no one above will escape through the windows.

<*SHEESH*> And HWSNBN slurps this sh*te up like it was cum from Cheney's c*ck. HWSNBN suffers from Logic Deficit Disorder.....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 2:00 am | #

daleyrocks suffers from Logic Deficit Disorder as well:

Arne - Bottom line comes after initial showing with rebroadcasts, homesales, etc. Free distribution to schools may actually expand market.

One word, Ben. One word. ("daleyrocks" won't catch the allusion) "Free".

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 2:02 am | #

Plastics are so 1960s Arne. Do you do tassels?

Conservatives understand business, libs don't.
daleyrocks | 09.07.06 - 2:04 am | #

Anonymous:

You probably won't miss me, but I have decided to un-subscribe to your blog now that you're constantly blogging at Salon despite the fact that they don't let people read stuff on their website.

Wow. You were paying for a subscription?!?!? Well, let me tell you; I can get you unsubscribed for far less than those unscrupulouos chiselers are asking ... and while you're at it, how about some beachfront in Arizona?

8^P

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 2:06 am | #

daleyrocks: Have you read their brief in this case or the transcript of the oral arguments? Are you certain they are relying on the AUMF argument if the standing issue is resolved?

Yes, I have read that brief. No, I don't have a transcript of the oral arguments, and must rely on the accuracy of the New York Times account.

From that brief, which appears to be a mirror of its counterpart filed in ACLU v NSA, where it was unpersuasive, DOJ addresses the merits only obliquely. But it does raise the AUMF argument with barely enough conviction that both Judge Taylor (who ruled against it) and Judge Lynch (who pooh-poohed it at the hearing) engaged the question.

As for whether I am certain they are "relying" on this argument, I think they are actually just relying on delay in the courts while they seek to achieve legalization in Congress. All the adminstration has going for it in court is the hope that the plaintiffs will fail to establish standing, which in no way would vindicate the pseudo-legal arguments spun by Bush's advocates in public discourse.

I find it interesting that of the two main "legal arguments" advanced by Gonzales and team in political venues -- the AUMF "argument" and the Article II "argument" -- surrogates such as yourself now run away from both. You illustrate what I have been saying for some time now: Bush advocates are quite afraid to make these "arguments" in a real court.

That disenguous tactic didn't work with Judge Taylor. I doubt that it will work with Judge Lynch.

Mister President, tell it to the judge.
Just an Observer | 09.07.06 - 2:11 am | #

Heard something squealing in the back yard. Maybe one of the traps caught something I can fry up for dinner!

Later
daleyrocks | 09.07.06 - 2:13 am | #

"daleyrocks" sez:

Conservatives understand business, libs don't.

Guess you're not a conservative then. I'll retract my comment about catching the allusion, though. But that would also indicate that you ought to know better.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 2:21 am | #

JAO:

Thank you for the analysis of the bills before Congress.

I did have another question. What is your analysis of Bart's repeated statements last time FISA was raised that numbers captures from an Al Qaeda computer or other source would not have enough probable cause to score a FISA warrant.

Whatever the merits of Bart's arguments, he makes them sound convincing enough that I think they need to be addressed.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 2:25 am | #

Say, anyone know whether this claim in the e-mail that Hewitt posted is in any way accurate?:

An exclamation point on this event is the fact that Oliver Stone will endorse the project this week. Not known for his conservative leanings, he loves the project. Perhaps this and the fact that the production company that made Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" are endorsing it would underline just how far out or touch and scared the Clinton Admin is about the revelation of the facts as portrayed in this project. Is it just that Clinton is continuing to re-define his legacy? Or is it his fears for this election cycle and 2008? Or both?

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 2:27 am | #

Paul - It's too bad you can't be specific about which clips or what the inaccuracies were isn't it?
daleyrocks

Schmuck.

NYT: Disney/ABC filmmaker admits they just made stuff up

Mr. Berger’s character is also seen abruptly hanging up during a conversation with a C.I.A. officer at a critical moment of a military operation. In an interview on Wednesday with KRLA-AM in Los Angeles, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the screenwriter of the movie and one of its producers, said that moment had been improvised.

“Sandy Berger did not slam down the phone,” Mr. Nowrasteh said. “That is not in the report. That was not script. But you know when you’re making a movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place. It’s the job of the filmmaker to say, ‘You know, maybe we can use that.’

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/0...r=1& oref=slogin

Three From Clinton Administration Urge Disney to Cancel or Revise 9/11 Mini-Series

Scholastic has scrubbed it's site of the teaching aids. I seriously doubt Stone or anyone else is going to endorse this PR nightmare for Disney ABC or the GOP, Arne.

The straight dope on Disney:

One of the more curious charges against Disney was that he was a secret Nazi. A few white supremacist groups still cherish this notion. Their best evidence is a misreading of the short film "Der Fuehrer's Face" (1943), in which Donald is seen in a Nazi uniform, swastikas and all. In the end we find out it's all a nightmare, but that doesn't dissuade the racists. A lesser-known short sometimes cited is 1932's "The Wayward Canary," in which Mickey is seen using a cigarette lighter with a swastika painted on the side.

This is all circumstantial at best, but other suggestive details have come to light. In 1933, the German American Bund was founded by Fritz Kuhn. Kuhn was evidently quite a character--he had met Hitler in the early thirties and reportedly was profoundly loathed by the Nazi leader. An association of German immigrants to America, the Bund had a definite pro-Nazi slant. Disney animator Art Babbitt claimed his boss had a strong interest in, if not outright sympathy for, the Bund:

"In the immediate years before we entered the War there was a small, but fiercely loyal, I suppose legal, following of the Nazi party . . . There were open meetings, anybody could attend and I wanted to see what was going on myself. On more than one occasion I observed Walt Disney and [Disney's lawyer] Gunther Lessing there, along with a lot of prominent Nazi-afflicted Hollywood personalities. Disney was going to meetings all the time."

The German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, whose documentaries in the mid-30s had helped to glorify the Nazis, claimed that "after Kristallnacht [1938], she approached every studio in Hollywood looking for work. No studio head would even screen her movies except Walt Disney. He told her he admired her work but if it became known that he was considering hiring her, it would damage his reputation."

For the most part Disney doesn't appear to have had strong political views--his politics seemed to turn on whatever it took to keep his studio going. It's likely his interest in the German American Bund sprang from a desire to forge relationships with Germany for possible film distribution there. On the other hand, there was a lot of antisemitic feeling in the Disney studio. While no one can specifically attribute bias to Disney himself, Jewish people were ready fodder for the animators' gags and Disney approved every scene in every short the studio made. In one scene in the original version of "The Three Little Pigs," the Big Bad Wolf comes to the door dressed as a stereotypical Jewish peddler. Disney changed the scene after complaints from Jewish groups. They didn't catch them all, though. In the short "The Opry House" Mickey Mouse is seen dressed and dancing as a Hasidic Jew.

Disney did have heartfelt opinions about a few things--he was virulently anti-communist and he was suspicious of unions, much like other studio heads of his day. In 1941, a strike was called against the Disney studios by animators and other artists dissatisfied that they got no onscreen credit for their work and were paid less than animators at other studios. Walt felt his company was more of a family and that the camaraderie compensated for substandard wages. He considered the strike a result of the "growing Communist conspiracy" in the United States. The dispute ended bitterly and hardened Disney's conservative and anti-communist attitudes.

Eventually he was called before the House Unamerican Activities Committee as a friendly witness, naming names of suspected communists in Hollywood. (The complete transcript of his testimony can be read at www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/06/ documents/huac/disney.html.) There is some inconclusive evidence that he might have been an FBI informant. However, this allegation comes from Marc Eliot's book Walt Disney: America's Dark Prince, which, while largely factual, does have parts that could use a good debunking. So take this with a large dose of salt.

http://www.straightdope.com/ mail...neyfascist.html
Anonymous | 09.07.06 - 3:07 am | #

Hi all,

Glenn, thanks for all your work on the ABC Republican Propaganda production (and everything else you do!)

It seems this is not just a US problem. This docudrama (Republican propaganda program) is going to be aired globally! This is how it's being promoted in Australia:
"The Path to 9/11 – For the first time... the story of exactly what happened..." and "… Official true story…"!!

It will be shown on the free-to-air Channel 7 in Australia. Here is a Flash video of the promo: FEATURED: The Path to 9/11

It also seems that Scholastic is behind this also. Scholastic have developed a Social Studies Teachers study guide for grades 9 to 12, that will be used in classrooms throughout the USA to help promote this Republican propaganda garbage!
9/11 Discussion Guide for ABC Miniseries

I have an extensive, ongoing blog about all this here (with all credits where due):
The truth about the (rightwing orgasmic fantasy film) Path to 9/11

So, essentially, the Republicans are trying to convince the entire World that 9/11 was all Clinton's fault, and Bush did everything he could and is a great guy. Yeah.

This is a Global problem now! The more that learn the truth, the better.

Cheers. :)
Kryten42 | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 3:09 am | #

Fluffy... I believe Bush was telling a fair amount of the truth in his recitation of "coersion" successes.

This depends on what you, or Bush mean by coercion.

Bush has had no "successes" from torture. It never produces anything useful. Even Napoleon knew that.

"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile."
- Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon to Berthier 11 Nov 1798, Corres., V, no. 3606 p. 128 quoted in - Napoleon on the Art of War

If Bush says it has, he is lying.

Our professionals are no different. See for yourself:

Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Teams Association (MCITTA)

http://www.mcitta.org/torture.htm
Anonymous | 09.07.06 - 3:28 am | #

It also seems that Scholastic is behind this also. Scholastic have developed a Social Studies Teachers study guide for grades 9 to 12, that will be used in classrooms throughout the USA to help promote this Republican propaganda garbage!
9/11 Discussion Guide for ABC Miniseries

And if you go to that link... nada. zip, bupkis, zilch.

Scholastic yanks Path to 9/11 teaching materials. Apparently, someone figured out this movie is not the right way to teach children about 9/11. All Spin Zone has details.

http://allspinzone.com/blog/inde...php? itemid=3311

This is turning into a PR nightmare for ABC/Disney and GOP and although it may air, it's going to blow up in all their faces, big time.
Anonymous | 09.07.06 - 3:49 am | #

OK, here the names, titles and email addresses for a number of key senior Disney decision makers I found, starting at the top
with the CEO and board of directors are at the bottom.

Let's make our voices heard and see if we can get these guys to pull this blatantly obvious Bush propaganda. ABC may profit from the predictable controversy but airing a film designed to obfuscate Bush's responsibility for 9/11 will cause ABC to suffer greatly in the estimation of serious people.

Disney and ABC should leave the RNC propaganda to Fox, it's not ABC's demographic.

Robert Iger - CEO - robert.a.iger@disney.com

Rich Ross - President of Disney Channel Worldwide - rich.ross@disney.com

Sean Cocchia - VP/Business Development, Disney Channel Worldwide- sean.cocchia@disney.com

Gary Marsh - Disney Channel Worldwide President of Entertainment - gary.marsh@disney.com

Sarah Shelton - Assistant to Gary Marshsarah - shelton@disney.com

Scott Garner - SVP/Programming, Disney Channel - scott.garner@disney.com

Karen Myer - Assistant to Scott Garner - karen.myer@disney.com

Meredith Metz - Senior Vice President, Creative Affairs, Walt Disney Television Animation - meredith.metz@disney.com

Lisa Salamone - The Head of Animation Production, Disney Channel - lisa.salamone@disney.com

Joanna Spak - The Head of Finance, Planning, etc., Disney Channel - joanna.spak@disney.com

Mark Kenchelian - The Head of Business and Legal Affairs, Disney Channel -mark.kenchelian@disney.com

Jewell Engstrom - CFO and Executive VP for Disney-ABC Cable Group - jewell.engstrom@disney.com

Olivia Stafford - Assistant to Jewell Engstrom - olivia.stafford@disney.com

Albert Cheng - EVP/Digital Media, Disney-ABC Television Group - albert.cheng@disney.com

Karen Hobson - Digital Media Communications Office, Disney-ABC Television Group - karen.hobson@disney.com

George Bodenheimer - Co-Chairman Media Networks Group - george.bodenheimer@disney.com

Nicole Nichols - Senior VP of Entertainment Communications, Disney-ABC Television Group - nicole.nichols@disney.com

Aime Wolfe - Assistant to Nicole Nichols - aime.wolfe@disney.com

Patti McTeague - VP of Kids Communications - patti.mcteague@disney.com

Siobhan Kenny - Acting Head of International Communications - siobhan.kenny@disney.com

Paul Lee - ABC Family Channel - paul.lee@disney.com

Annie Fort - ABC Family Media Relations - annie.fort@disney.com

Alex Wallau - President of Network Operations & Administration - alex.wallau@disney.com

David Westin - ABC News President - david.westin@disney.com

Mike Shaw - ABC Sales and Marketing President - mike.shaw@disney.com

Fred Kuperberg - Disney/ABC Executive VP of Business and Legal Affairs - fred.kuperberg@disney.com

Kara Rousseau - VP of Ad Sales Marketing for Disney/ABC Kids Networks - kara.rousseau@disney.com

Kim Harbin - Buena Vista Media Relations - kim.harbin@disney.com

Anne Gates - Disney Consumer Products Executive VP & CFO - anne.gates@disney.com

James Fielding - Senior VP, Retail Sales and Marketing for DCP - james.fielding@disney.com

Deborah Dugan - President of Disney Publishing - deborah.dugan@disney.com

Graham Hopper - Senior VP and General Manager of Buena Vista Games - graham.hopper@disney.com

Angela Emery - Director of Public Relations, Buena Vista Games - angela.emery@disney.com

Chris Bess - Buena Vista Home Entertainment - chris.bess@disney.com

Peter Murphy - Senior Adviser to Mr. Iger - peter.murphy@disney.com

Judy Estrin - Board of Directors - jestrin@packetdesign.com

John Bryson - Board of Directors - john.bryson@edisonintl.com

Monica Lozano - Board of Directors - monica.lozano@laopinion.com

John Chen - Board of Directors - john.chen@sybase.com

Gary Wilson - Board of Directors - gary.wilson@nwa.com

Leo Odonova - Board of Directors - leo.odonovan@mbna.com

Thomas Staggs - CFO/Senior V.P. - tom.staggs@disney.com

David K. Thompson - Senior Vice President - David.K.Thompson@disney.com
Lucid analysis | 09.07.06 - 4:05 am | #

Yep! as Anonymous posted just above, Scholastic have yanked the webpage promoting the propaganda to Schools! However, the PDF's are still (currently) available, via Media Matters:
ABC-Sponsored teaching materials falsely suggest Iraq had WMD, link War in Iraq to 9/11

I have grabbed a copy of them, just in case. ;)

I have updated my blog with this info.

Well, one down... :)

Cheers all!
Kryten42 | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 4:47 am | #

Glenn, Am I correct when I assume that the Bush is trying to set up a whole new Justice system? Does this not set up lots of problems? Challenges in court at every step of the way? etc....
druidbros | 09.07.06 - 5:28 am | #

ABC 9/11 The Clintonista Chickens flock home to roost.
Sandy Burger stuffing documents into his 'boxers or briefs'.
Richard Clarke letting Osama get away, then get away, then get away.
Bill Clinton with Monica's lips locked on his zipper while Arafat waits in the Rose Garden. While al Queda plots Bill Clinton squats bare-ass on a rug.
Gawd the truth hurts, eh?
Cruise missles to an asprin factory, and on and on. History is starting to roll, and we all know we love "let's roll"!
George Dixon | 09.07.06 - 7:38 am | #

George, if you are brave enough, and I know bravery is something many Republicans cherish but few have, I'd suggest you take the same critical eye and apply it to the Bush administration.
tom | 09.07.06 - 7:47 am | #

Bart demonstrates here the effect of the third filter of the Propaganda Model, dependence on official sources. Journalists are encouraged to take for granted that what these official sources tell them is true, and report this "truth." This is then passed to us as the truth we read about in the newspaper, hear about on the radio, or see on TV. Of course Bush is going to claim that torture works; they've been doing it, they got caught, so now they have to justify it by saying that it is not only effective but necessary. So if torture works, the Congress has a responsibility to make it legal retroactively because the government needs to be able to continue to torture in order to protect us, and they can't very well do that if they're in jail or out of office, now can they? Because, of course, the Democrats don't have the spine to really protect us, only the Republicans (read: the Bush administration) do.

Torture doesn't work. Coercive interrogation techniques do. There's a difference between the two. Torture is typically a means of totally and permanently breaking down the will of the victim. This leads to permanent psychological impairment, even to a loss of self-identity. The intensity of the act means that the victim is likely to confess to something they didn't do rather than allow the torture to continue. Even if the victim does know something, there is little torture can do that normal interrogation techniques can't, without harming both victim and perpetrator.

The other argument against torture is that it degrades the torturer. Numerous studies bear this out; committing acts of cruelty harms the perpetrator's mental health. Only the most hardened, unfeeling person would not begin to suffer the ill effects of cruelty toward other people. There are techniques to minimize this impact, all of which involve dehumanizing the victim. This is another reason why we should not torture.

Finally, it makes us no better than them. I think the most persuasive argument against torture is not that it lowers our status in the eyes of Muslims (it does), but that it reduces us to the level of the very people we're supposed to be fighting. If we believe that these people commit inhuman acts of cruelty (they clearly have), do we not undermine our own right to criticize and condemn them for their acts if we engage in torture? Doesn't it just reduce it to a tu quoque?
IngSoc | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 7:58 am | #

Conservatives understand business, libs don't.
daleyrocks

Next, diddlebrains will tell us that black people can run fast but can't swim.
Baldie McEagle | 09.07.06 - 7:59 am | #

Gawd the truth hurts, eh?

Which is presumably why you avoid it. ;)

As does the writer of the "Path to 9/11":

"Mr. Berger’s character is also seen abruptly hanging up during a conversation with a C.I.A. officer at a critical moment of a military operation. In an interview yesterday with KRLA-AM in Los Angeles, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the mini-series’ screenwriter and one of its producers, said that moment had been improvised.

"Sandy Berger did not slam down the phone," Mr. Nowrasteh said. "That is not in the report. That was not scripted. But you know when you’re making a movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place. It’s the job of the filmmaker to say, ‘You know, maybe we can use that.’ "

All fine to 'use that' if it's a fictional creation, but if you're claiming to be based on the 9/11 report, you're supposed to use that instead, no?
EGB's Smelly Sox | 09.07.06 - 8:02 am | #

Is it just that Clinton is continuing to re-define his legacy? Or is it his fears for this election cycle and 2008? Or both?

Amazing. Clinton just won't go away, will he? Makes you wish he really had all the superpowers ascribed to him by the paranoid wingnuts.
Baldie McEagle | 09.07.06 - 8:04 am | #

This is a body blow to the argument that coercive techniques you call "torture" is ineffective in gaining useful intelligence.

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's comments regarding slavery:

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
Rob McMillin | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 8:05 am | #

Is Dana Priest a man or a woman? No disparagement or sexual politics intended; I've just seen male and female pronouns applied, and I don't know.
Stuart Eugene Thiel | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 8:28 am | #

Anyone remember TV Funhouse's amazing satire of Disney?

Watch it here:
http://www.transbuddha.com/media...der.php? id=1706

And Smigel did another fantastic corporate media satire here too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y...h? v=YgwaW5rGsm0

Cheers
Matthew Chaldecott | 09.07.06 - 9:13 am | #

Conservatives understand business, libs don't.
daleyrocks

Bwahahaha! Every business chimpy ran, he ran into the the ground. Just like he's running this country.
Anonymous | 09.07.06 - 9:47 am | #

Remember when the Clinton Administration stopped Saddam Hussein's plot to kill George H. W. Bush? Remember when they stopped al Qaeda's Millenium Plot? Remember when they stopped other al Qaeda plots? They didn't have to use "extraordinary retentions" or even use an unconstitutional Patriot Act.

I also wonder how the ABC mini-truth mini-series might deal with the fact that the Dubai royal family protected Osama bin Laden from the CIA during the Clinton Administration and now the Bush Administration wants to turn over the management of American ports to these same protectors of bin Laden.
Tom | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 9:50 am | #

Scholastic is now waffling, but this is not going well for the GOP and Disney.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09...scholastic-911/
Anonymous | 09.07.06 - 9:57 am | #

Enlightened Layperson,

Sorry, I am not ignoring your. I composed what I thought was a responsive answer to two questions you have asked me, but HaloScan barfed and it disappeared without a trace. I don't have time to recreate it now but hope to do so later.

[HaloScan is rapidly becoming a four-letter-word for me.]
Just an Observer | 09.07.06 - 11:12 am | #

OK, thanks. I eagerly await it.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 11:25 am | #

JaO,

I agree with your comment about HaloScan. I don't know if this would work for you, but I use an external text editor to compose longer comments, then copy and paste them into the HS edit window before previewing for tags. It allows me to recover from an HS barf, and has the added virtue of a spell-checker, and full-screen editing which helps catch errors before previewing in HS.
William Timberman | 09.07.06 - 11:36 am | #

Willaim Timbernam:

Spelchekcer? Hmmm.... I need one of doze.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 11:39 am | #

Arne, you don't need no steenking spell-checker. You're just fine the way you are. A wondrous thing, human-pattern recognition. Served us well before standardized orthography became common, and serves us equally well now.
William Timberman | 09.07.06 - 1:03 pm | #

So HWSNBN and others of your ilk- If Clinton did not go after OBL with enough zeal for your taste- how has Chimpy's record been? Did he not say "I really don't spend much time thinking about him" (paraphrased)

And what about the recent revelation that our good buddy and partner in the war on terra Pakistan just announced that they would not arrest OBL if he showed up? Are we willing to start the bombing tomorrow....oh wait, that is Iran.
Anonymous | 09.07.06 - 1:53 pm | #

Enlightened Layperson,

1) You asked: What is your analysis of Bart's repeated statements last time FISA was raised that numbers captures from an Al Qaeda computer or other source would not have enough probable cause to score a FISA warrant.

It is hard to generalize and speculate about such hypotheticals because these things are inherently fact-specific. But I think if a phone number is actually found on a captured Al Qaeda computer or address book, that context likely is enough to establish "probable cause."

Remember, that phrase is shorthand for a partial degree of proof or certainty, and the bar under FISA is not that high. One of the retired FISA judges told Congress that in practice it was roughly the same as "reasonable suspicion."

Other hypotheticals can have different results, however. If a U.S. phone number is simply harvested from telecom traffic, and all the government knows is that it is called from a certain number abroad, I doubt that is sufficient to establish probable cause. Such information, alone, is generally not sufficient for federal prosecutors to obtain a criminal-investigative wiretap warrant, and I think a similar bar would obtain for FISA warrants. Absent a time-critical emergency, however, the government has opportunity to get corroboration.

In understanding "probable cause" under FISA, it is necessary to understand: "Probable cause" of what? In the case of Al Qaeda, legally considered a "foreign power," that means "probable cause" that the target is an "agent of a foreign power," which in turn means that the target "knowingly" does one or more specificly described bad things. I can't believe that can be established merely because someone answers the phone. Some corroborating information would also be required, I think.

As the administration has described the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, its stated parameters for who is targeted are much more loosey-goosey. There is supposed to be "reasonable belief" that target is a "member" of Al Qaeda or an "affiliated" group, "affiliated" with Al Qaeda, or merely "working in support of" Al Qaeda. That vague definition could include many persons who do not fit the more rigorous definitions in FISA.

So I think the NSA program does include some immediate fishing that FISA itself would not. What I don't know is how much more wiretapping is actually done, and how much of that could be done under FISA warrants without much extra administrative effort, because I am not privy to the secret details.

2) You also asked what my own druthers would be in legislation, and this is directly related to the question above.

Of all the legislative proposals on the table today, I think Sen. Feinstein's is the best vehicle. I don't think it is perfect, but it does attempt to address the common hypotheticals of "hot pursuit" tracking of suspect calls. Feinstein has been briefed on the program, and she insists that it can be accommodated with some modest tweaks in FISA, while retaining the requirement for individual warrants.

The extra flexibility her bill would allow the government comes in the "emergency" provision of FISA allowing surveillance to start before the warrant is approved by the court. That provision, in currrent law and Feinstein's proposed amendment, still requires executive-branch officials to "reasonably determine" in advance that the facts needed to support probable cause exist. It retains the existing FISA definitions. The bill extends the total time required for the retroactive warrant application from three days to seven, and allows the AG to delegate the decision to senior NSA or FBI officials.

What really matters is what happens if the "emergency" surveillance turns out not to be justified. Within the first three days, the government can decide the emergency surveillance was not justified, and abort it without penalty. After that, the application would have to go to the FISA court, and if disapproved, the target would need to be notified as under current law. The information from a wiretap not retroactively approved generally could not be used.

The three-day grace period is the real change. Under current law if the AG guesses wrong in an emergency situation and the FISA court disapproves, some Dearborn soccer mom or mystery person might get a letter saying they had been wiretapped. This grace is offset by a requirement to report the incident to Congress and the FISA court, to guard against general abuse of this exception. I would feel better if the safeguards were tightened somewhat.

Overall, that strikes me as a modest change, although some commenters (thelastnamechosen, for one) disagree with me. It is consistent with the "minimization" procedures FISA employs now. The amendment does not make changes nearly so sweeping as any of the current Republican bills. I think Democrats would be well advised to support some reasonable attempt to improve FISA, and this seems a credible candidate. (As an aside, I also was willing to consider Specter's original proposal to require the administration to seek court approval of a more general court order, without specific targets, for limited time periods. But Specter's bill has morphed into a general gutting of FISA, and I can no longer support anything like its current form.)

In addition, I am sympathetic to the NSA's stated intent of making FISA "technology neutral." That would keep interception of foreign-to-foreign communications, and even foreign-to-domestic communications where the target is abroad, from being caught under FISA just because a tap occurs on a global telecom switch located in the United States. Historically, those intercepts were understood to be within NSA's mission, and beyond the scope of FISA, because most international traffic used to be satcom-base. Reading between the lines of what NSA has testified about this proposal, they imply that this policy change -- sought long before 9/11 -- would accomodate much of the traffic being handled under the "TSP" today. But the actual language in the Specter and Wilson bills, ostensibly designed to fulfill that intent, seems much too broad and risks opening up huge new domestic loopholes.

I think that if Congress approaches FISA reform in a bipartisan way, it is possible to enact some reasonable and prudent bill that would update the statute and augment legitimate efforts to track terrorists. But there seems little hope of that happening now, so the best thing to hope for tactically may be no legislation at all in the current Congress. But politically, I think Democrats still must be able to point to some reasonable alternative.

Anyway, that's what I think. YMMV.
Just an Observer | 09.07.06 - 1:53 pm | #

JAO:

Thank you. Something to think about.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 3:07 pm | #

JaO:

My thank you also. A very helpful clarification.
William Timberman | 09.07.06 - 3:26 pm | #

JaO:

The three-day grace period is the real change. Under current law if the AG guesses wrong in an emergency situation and the FISA court disapproves, some Dearborn soccer mom or mystery person might get a letter saying they had been wiretapped. This grace is offset by a requirement to report the incident to Congress and the FISA court, to guard against general abuse of this exception. I would feel better if the safeguards were tightened somewhat.

IIRC, under FISA [50 USC § 1806(j)], the gummint can ask that the "target" not be notified if a court order is not approved, if there's "good cause" shown ex parte as to why this should not be done. This will prevent inadveretnt disclosure of ongoing operations as necessary.

In addition, there's other provisions under 50 USC § 1806 as to destruction of any information if nothing is found.

These mitigation provisions need to be preserved in any amendment of FISA.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 5:32 pm | #

From cq.com (subscription required. I have no details):

Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter said he might ask Majority Leader Bill Frist to take legislation on the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program straight to the Senate floor after opponents on Thursday again blocked the panel from voting on the measure.

AP story about the inaction in the Judiciary Committee is here: Eavesdropping Bill Stalls in Committee

The AP story mentions a letter from Feingold and five other senators, including three Republicans, asking Specter to delay reporting the bill. Does anyone have a link to this letter, or know who signed it?
Just an Observer | 09.07.06 - 5:32 pm | #

JaO:

In addition, I am sympathetic to the NSA's stated intent of making FISA "technology neutral." That would keep interception of foreign-to-foreign communications, and even foreign-to-domestic communications where the target is abroad, from being caught under FISA just because a tap occurs on a global telecom switch located in the United States.

I agreee on this as well (and I think I even suggested this is a prior comment, possibly swallowed in the Blogger->Haloscan transition). In the mobile telephony world, location of "tap" is necessarily extensive (I know from experience), and the "tap" in many if not most cases isn't even a physical one, so the location of the "tap" has become increasingly if not totally irrelevant. What needs to be preserved is the disparate interests (and/or rights) of various parties; i.e. should U.S. law govern the parties due to party nationality or due to physical presence of the parties in U.S. jurisdiction.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 5:46 pm | #

What is the take on the Prez' move on transfering the Blacksite detainees to Gtmo.?

The push is for the congress to pass a bill on military tribunals "so these terrorists" can be tried for 9/11. If Democrats oppose it then they will look to be on the side of the terrorists.

Can't we effectively argue that we didn't need a military tribunal for Moussaui and that the SCOTUS has already indicated that those tribunals are unconstitutional. In other words to be legal it would need a constitutional amendment not an act of congress.
txexspeedy | 09.07.06 - 6:00 pm | #

txexspeedy:

What is the take on the Prez' move on transfering the Blacksite detainees to Gtmo.?

The push is for the congress to pass a bill on military tribunals "so these terrorists" can be tried for 9/11. If Democrats oppose it then they will look to be on the side of the terrorists.

There's two options already available: Criminal trials or courts martial. Either will do. No need for "military commissions"; AFAIK the impetus for those was to ensure that everyone's guilty by leaving out choice pieces of "due process" and "fair trial"....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 6:54 pm | #

JaO, here's a pdf of the letter: http://talkleft.com/nsaletter.pdf

It was signed by Craig, Sunnunu, Murkowski, Durbin, Feingold, and Salazar.
Mark Field | 09.07.06 - 11:29 pm | #

Commenting by HaloScan