And now for something completely different: President Bush, yes, this President Bush--as a liberal.
The Canadian magazine Macleans is making that argument, under the shocking headline "The shockingly liberal legacy of George W. Bush."
The irony that it misses: Could it be that Vice President Dick Cheney is the force behind at least one element of the "liberalization?"
In a lengthy article that addresses the breadth of the Bush presidency and notes that the administration's legacy is more than just the war in Iraq, it says: "In some areas it is the result of hard-line conservative ideology — but in others it is surprisingly liberal."
Consider the seeming contradictions: The tax-cutting conservative who ...
The proposed rule change was first set out for public comment on July 31, and drew little attention:
As law enforcement agencies, including local and state units, watch for signs of terrorist activity, they could target groups as well as individuals, and begin criminal intelligence investigations "based on the suspicion that a target is engaged in terrorism or providing material support to terrorists." And they could spread around the law enforcement world the fruits of the investigation.
In short, it would move local police forces into the realm of intelligence-gathering that had been the work of the FBI and other federal agencies.
The proposed shift was noticed by the Washington Post, which reported Saturday that the Justice Department's proposal "would make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years."
The newspaper noted that the administration was in the process of revising domestic intelligence-gathering in its waning months in office, and would lock in policies for President Bush's successor, completing the greatest expansion of executive branch authority since the Watergate era.
Jim McMahon, deputy executive director of the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, was quoted by the Post as saying the changes would "catch up with reality," updating rules from the early 1990s to the post-9/11 world.
He said police agencies would still have to demonstrate a "reasonable suspicion" that a target was involved in a crime before collecting intelligence, the paper said.
But, it noted, Michael German, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and a 16-year veteran of the FBI, said police agencies could misunderstand it as allowing them to collect intelligence "even when no underlying crime is suspected."
He cited as an example an investigation into a charitable donation to a group later designated as a terrorist organization.
It risks turning police officers into "spies on behalf of the federal government," he said.
Appeals. Rulings. Negotiations. Delays. Will this movie ever end?
Remember the case of the nine U.S. attorneys who were fired from their jobs amid accusations from Democrats that they were canned for not toeing the Republican line? Remember how the White House claimed executive privilege and refused to let top aides like chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers testify before Congress? Remember when a U.S. district judge, John Bates, said they had to?
Well today Bolten and Miers asked the judge for a delay. Seems they want to appeal his ruling. And they need more time. In a court filing they said:
Whatever the proper resolution of the extraordinarily important questions presented, the public interest clearly favors further consideration of issues before defendants are required to take actions that may forever alter the constitutional balance of separation of powers.
The tussle over this particular controversy could end by January. That's when congressional subpoenas expire, about three weeks before President Bush leaves office. As C2C reported earlier, Miers has been effectively muzzled.
But other investigations live on. As Murray Waas reports today in the Huffington Post, a federal grand jury has subpoenaed several former senior Justice Department attorneys in an investigation into the politicalization of the Justice Department's civil rights division. Over its hiring policies.
One question: whether senior administration figure Bradley Schlozman lied to Congress about screening attorneys for political affiliation before hiring them.
And, even more explosive, Waas is now reporting that the Justice Department investigation into the firing of the nine prosecutors has been extended to examine the question of whether senior White House officials misrepresented their roles in the scandal.
-- Johanna Neuman
Photo: Harriet Miers with President Bush. Credit: Matthew Cavanaugh / Getty Images
When foreign intelligence agents and law enforcement teams arrived at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to talk to their countrymen held there, a third party was likely listening in on the interrogations, according to a report published today: U.S. officials operating via sound and video recording equipment.
The Washington Post says the policy, revealed in documents it obtained, suggests that the U.S. government could have thousands of hours of taped conversations recorded between detainees and representatives of nearly three dozen countries.
Which opens these questions: Do the tapes still exist? Will the recordings -- sound and video -- surface?
And if so, will they show misbehavior? Threats? Useful intelligence? Or information exonerating a detainee who remains in captivity?
The Post noted:
Should such videotapes exist, they would reveal how representatives from countries such as China, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia treated detainees in small interrogation booths at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba--sessions that some detainees have said were abusive and at times contained threats of torture or even death.
But, the newspaper also said, while defense attorneys have long sought such evidence, the Bush administration has not indicated the tapes exist.
Nonetheless, even as the Pentagon has said it did not "regularly videotape interrogations" at Gitmo, it acknowledged last month that it had recorded at least seven hours of Canadian officials interrogating terrorism suspect Omar Khadr. It acknowledged having the tapes after the Canadian Supreme Court ordered Canadian officials to release them.
Not content with taking your shoes and confiscating your water, now the Department of Homeland Security is gunning for your laptops.
As the Washington Post reported yesterday, Border Patrol and Customs agents can now "detain" laptops "for a reasonable period of time" to "review and analyze information."
They don't need probable cause under the new policy. Doesn't matter if you're a U.S. citizen or foreign visitor. Officials can hold the laptops indefinitely. Or hard drives, flash drives, cellphones, iPods, pagers, beepers, video and audio tapes. Ditto papers, documents, books, pamphlets, even litter.
"It's not our intent to subject legitimate travelers to undue scrutiny, but to ensure the safety of the American public," wrote Jayson Ahern, U.S. Customs deputy commissioner, in a recent policy paper.
Arguing that border searches of laptops have already uncovered intellectual property rights violations, extremist Jihadist literature, video clips of IEDs and child pornography, he pledged the government would never disclose confidential information "without lawful authority."
The policy has been on the books for awhile, but just confirmed under pressure from civil rights and business groups worried about increasing reports of laptop confiscation.
"Truly alarming," said Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.). Added sci-fi blogger Annalee Newit, "Who will defend the rights of the detained laptops?"
The White House's hopes of using a broad claim of executive privilege to shield top officials from testifying before Congress ran into a brick wall today.
U.S. District Judge John Bates, a Bush appointee, ruled in a 93-page opinion that former White House counsel Harriet Miers is not immune from congressional subpoena and is required to testify on the U.S. attorney scandal and the politicization of the Justice Department.
And attention, Karl Rove: The judge rejected procedural arguments by Miers and White House Chief of staff Josh Bolten, ruling that they have to cough up documents.
Democrats were thrilled.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called it "very good news for anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States and the separation of powers, and checks and balances."
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. pledged to call Miers before the committee as soon as September to testify about whether the White House played any role in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year. In a statement, he said:
We look forward to the White House complying with this ruling and to scheduling future hearings with Ms. Miers and other witnesses who have relied on such claims. We hope that the defendants will accept this decision and expect that we will receive relevant documents and call Ms. Miers to testify in September.
No word yet on whether the White House will appeal.
Questions about whether former White House political maestro Karl Rove encouraged the
indictment of Don Siegelman,
a popular former Democratic governor of Alabama whose corruption conviction is on appeal, linger even after Rove sent a letter that seemed to be an
unequivocal denial.
As C2C (Countdown to Crawford) reported Wednesday, Rove sent an unsigned letter to the ranking Republican on the House
Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith of Texas, denying any involvement in
Siegelman's case. In the letter, forwarded to the committee by his attorney, Rove said:
I have never communicated, either directly or
indirectly, with Justice Department or Alabama officials about the
investigation, indictment, potential prosecution, prosecution,
conviction or sentencing of Gov. Siegelman, or about any other matter
related to his case, nor have I asked any other individual to
communicate about these matters on my behalf. I have never attempted,
either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters.
But Siegelman, in a subsequent e-mail to Times
staffer Tom Hamburger on Thursday, wrote that Rove still has some
answering to do -- and he called on the former White House strategist
to do so under oath. He particularly questioned whether Rove talked
about the case with Bill Canary, a Republican whose wife is the U.S. attorney in Montgomery, Ala. That office indicted Siegelman -- though Canary
recused herself from the case. In the e-mail, Siegelman wrote:
Rove refused to deny that he had
plotted with the US Attorney's husband, Bill Canary, to get his wife
to further the joint state/federal investigation which was started by
Rove's client, the Alabama attorney general.
Karl Rove built his career in Alabama working with
Bill Canary. Rove's client started investigating me in 1999 right after
I endorsed Al Gore. Then the wife of Rove's associate, Laura Canary,
accelerated the case federally in 2001, she indicted me during the 2006
campaign, and she brought me to trial less than four weeks before the
election. There is sworn testimony that Bill Canary said that he had it
worked out with Karl to destroy me, and that two Alabama US Attorneys
would do the job. Both those US Attorneys did in fact indict me. And
now, Rove refuses to deny that he talked to Bill Canary about
prosecuting me. They sent me to prison on less evidence than this.”
After hearing from Siegelman, C2C contacted Rove’s
attorney, Robert Luskin, who waved away the still-persistent questions
saying that the written denial to the committee was meant to be
sweeping and complete. He denied that Rove sought to influence the case
by speaking to Canary -- or anyone else.
Luskin said the written denial of Rove’s involvement
applied not only to communications with Justice Department or other
government officials but “was clearly intended to include the use of
any intermediary or middleman. That includes Bill Canary, or any other
human being on Earth.”
They lined up by the hundreds to be a witness to history at the Judiciary Committee's unofficial impeachment hearings of George W. Bush today.
It wasn't called that of course. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-S.F.) had balked at a real impeachment hearing. Something about fearing a voter backlash from the public, already in a bad mood about Congress' inaction on core issues.
But today's hearing by the House Judiciary Committee -- billed as an inquiry to the Bush administration's use of executive power -- was ripe with opportunity for those who want to evict the president from office.
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) accused the administration of diminishing legislative power "beyond recognition" and cited "a litany of wrongful actions," accusing the White House of "a dangerous consolidation of power."
Rep. Maurice "Mo" Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said of the White House, "I think this is the most impeachable administration in the history of our country."
But Republicans (except for one, Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, an outspoken Bush foe) defended the White House.
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee, belittled Democrats' attempts to turn the proceedings into an impeachment forum. If last month's hearing with former White House spokesman Scott McClellan amounted to a "Book of the Month Club," he said, today's is "an anger management class. Nothing is going to come out of this hearing on impeachment."
And Rep. Steve King of Iowa argued that after 45 hearings -- with such witnesses as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, McClellan and former
Ambassador Joe Wilson -- there was no evidence that the Bush administration had committed any high crimes and misdeameanors. King also claimed that a recently declassified CIA document proves the president's controversial 16-words in his 2003 State of the Union address about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from Niger are corroborated by Wilson's report.
Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) reminded them both that "to the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing."
The hearing did however afford an opportunity for Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) to air one of his 35 articles of impeachment about Bush -- the one about manipulating intelligence to hoodwink the public and Congress about Iraq's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
And the hearing also gave an opportunity for former Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, now the Libertarian Party's presidential standard bearer, to note that because of the Bush administration's politicalization of the Justice Department, four times as many Americans now have more trust in the Post Office.
-- Johanna Neuman
(An earlier version of this post misidentified Bob Barr as having represented Texas, not Georgia. Thanks to eagle-eyed reader "John Gaither" for alerting us.)
With the House Judiciary Committee planning a hearing Friday on the Bush administration's use of executive privilege, public pressure is building to urge the committee to jail Karl Rove, the Bush White House political maestro.
A coalition of organizations gathered 80,000 signatures on a petition calling on the committee to hold Rove in contempt for his refusal to obey its subpoena. Brave News Films, author of an earlier Internet effort to kick Joseph Lieberman out of the Democratic Party after his endorsement of Republican John McCain, released its petition, Send Karl Rove to Jail, in hopes of compelling Rove
to testify under oath about his involvement in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.
As Countdown reported here Monday, Democrat Siegelman was investigated by a Republican U.S. attorney with ties to Rove. She later recused herself from his case, but allegations of partisan influence in the case persist. Siegelman's conviction on political corruption charges is on appeal.
For his part, Rove has refused to testify before Congress, citing executive privilege.
Can caretaker Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey set the Justice Department straight?
That is the question that hangs over the short-termer, who inherited a department set back on its heels by complaints of political interference and a readiness to overlook legal standards in the fight against terrorism.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was quoted in the Washington Post as saying the attorney general was "content to serve as a caretaker for the regime of excessive executive power established by the Bush administration."
This morning, Mukasey made it clear that on one of the most controversial issues facing the department, the Bush administration was not shifting course: The Supreme Court's decision that gave detainees at Guantanamo Bay the right to use federal courts to challenge their imprisonment.
In a speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, he turned to Congress to limit the impact of the ruling. He said it should pass legislation barring federal judges from letting out of the prison there any of the detainees, many of whom he said "pose an extraordinary threat to Americans."
He wasn't saying the court decision should be ignored. His point was to find a way of keeping the prisoners at Guantanamo while their court cases proceed.
"Congress should make clear that a federal court may not order the government to bring enemy combatants into the United States" to attend court proceedings, he said.
It is with just such issues that Mukasey's reputation as attorney general is likely to rest.
The Washington Post noted that he has "rejected requests to name a special prosecutor to examine whether Cabinet officials committed war crimes when they approved harsh interrogation tactics for terrorism suspects."
And, it observed, he decided not to revisit the question of whether a public corruption case criticized by 52 bipartisan state attorneys general was a matter of "selective prosecution" -- meaning that politics played a role in the decision to prosecute.
James Gerstenzang and Johanna Neuman are reporters in The Times' Washington bureau. Between the two of them, they have covered the White House, diplomacy, military affairs, the environment, international economics, trade and Congress. They have both spent time in Crawford, Texas.
