Showing posts with label Patrick Leahy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patrick Leahy. Show all posts

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich's speech to the Democratic National Convention, and the American public


Denver, Colorado--I still cannot believe the DNC allowed him to make this speech, as they haven't exactly been supportive of him. Now that the Populist message is--well--"popular" again, they had little choice. But where was Russell Feingold or Patrick Leahy?

Of course, we know the condition was that he didn't spell-out that many Democrats aided-and-abetted the Bush administration and still are, but, what the hell? It's good to see and hear the truth for a change, and he sounds an awful lot like Ralph Nader.

Now, if only candidate Obama would start walking and talking like Mr. Kucinich, a man I wish was my representative. Joe Donnelly has decided to be on the wrong side of history, to his eternal shame and ignominy. He'll be remembered alright, just not fondly by anyone with a clue (or food, water, and batteries for flashlights in the ruins of civilization). Thanks Joe, you remind me that there are plenty of incumbents in the Democratic Party who have to go, and you're one of them.



The
Speech:

It’s Election Day 2008. We Democrats are giving America a wake-up call. Wake up, America. In 2001, the oil companies, the war contractors and the neo-con artists seized the economy and have added 4 trillion dollars of unproductive spending to the national debt. We now pay four times more for defense, three times more for gasoline and home heating oil and twice what we paid for health care.

Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their homes, their health care, their pensions. Trillions of dollars for an unnecessary war paid with borrowed money. Tens of billions of dollars in cash and weapons disappeared into thin air, at the cost of the lives of our troops and innocent Iraqis, while all the president’s oilmen are maneuvering to grab Iraq’s oil.

Borrowed money to bomb bridges in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. No money to rebuild bridges in America. Money to start a hot war with Iran. Now we have another cold war with Russia, while the American economy has become a game of Russian roulette.

If there was an Olympics for misleading, mismanaging and misappropriating, this administration would take the gold. World records for violations of national and international laws. They want another four-year term to continue to alienate our allies, spend our children’s inheritance and hollow out our economy.

We can’t afford another Republican administration. Wake up, America. The insurance companies took over health care. Wake up, America. The pharmaceutical companies took over drug pricing. Wake up, America. The speculators took over Wall Street. Wake up, America. They want to take your Social Security. Wake up, America. Multinational corporations took over our trade policies, factories are closing, good paying jobs lost.

Wake up, America. We went into Iraq for oil. The oil companies want more. War against Iran will mean $10-a-gallon gasoline. The oil administration wants to drill more, into your wallet. Wake up, America. Weapons contractors want more. An Iran war will cost 5 to 10 trillion dollars.

This administration can tap our phones. They can’t tap our creative spirit. They can open our mail. They can’t open economic opportunities. They can track our every move. They lost track of the economy while the cost of food, gasoline and electricity skyrockets. They skillfully played our post-9/11 fears and allowed the few to profit at the expense of the many. Every day we get the color orange, while the oil companies, the insurance companies, the speculators, the war contractors get the color green.

Wake up, America! This is not a call for you to take a new direction from right to left. This is call for you to go from down to up. Up with the rights of workers. Up with wages. Up with fair trade. Up with creating millions of good paying jobs, rebuilding our bridges, ports and water systems. Up with creating millions of sustainable energy jobs to lower the cost of energy, lower carbon emissions and protect the environment.

Up with health care for all! Up with education for all! Up with home ownership! Up with guaranteed retirement benefits. Up with peace! Up with prosperity! Up with the Democratic Party! Up with Obama-Biden!

Wake up, America! Wake up, America! Wake up, America!

Monday, November 05, 2007

A Valid Assertion: Senator Patrick Leahy & Senate Judiciary Committee Are Paying Close Attention to Palfrey Case


SITE METER
--The proof's in the puddin,' dearie. Today's site reading--at minimum--represents the sixth time of the Sergeant at Arms' office visiting J-7, with 80% of them being over the legal predicament of Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

This time, it's related, and over the woman who Palfrey is attempting to sue in a civil action (a hearing as to whether the suit should be allowed to go forward is scheduled for November 28th): Dr. Paula Neble. What's she a doctor of? I'd sure like to know, and it's certain this writer isn't alone...

Domain Name
senate.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address
156.33.35.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
ISP
U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
Location
Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : District of Columbia
City : Washington
Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language
English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System
Microsoft WinXP
Browser
Internet Explorer 7.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
Javascript
version 1.3
Monitor
Resolution : 1600 x 1000
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit
Nov 5 2007 11:34:13 pm
Last Page View
Nov 5 2007 11:34:13 pm
Visit Length
0 seconds
Page Views
1
Referring URL
http://www.google.co...?hl=en&q=paula neble
Search Engine
google.com
Search Words
paula neble
Visit Entry Page
http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page
http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Out Click

Time Zone
UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time
Nov 5 2007 11:34:13 am
Visit Number
22,995

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Joe Lieberman, Larry E. Craig, David Vitter and the Rest of the Senate Republicans Continue to Stall on Reinstitution of Habeas Corpus


"The truth is that casting aside the time-honored protection of Habeas Corpus makes us more vulnerable as a nation because it leads us away from our core American values. It calls into question our historic role as a defender of human rights around the world."
--Democratic Senate Judiciary Chair, Senator Patrick Leahy today (AP, 09.19.2007).


'[Habeas corpus] "is a constitutional right that has existed since the Magna Carta in 1215.' --GOP Sen. Arlen Specter, seeing the writing on the wall. (AP, 09.19.2007)


Washington D.C.--It all began before the first big washout in the November 2006 midterm elections--the one where everyone was watching too-closely, so they (the GOP) couldn't steal it. The offending piece of legislation: The Military Commissions Act of 2006, which bars 'foreign combatants' from the right to due process, or to challenge the charges against them.

What most of the media isn't reporting right now is the fact that it also effectively impairs all of our rights domestically as well, and that it sets a precedent if it stands. Guantanamo is "Act One" in suspending all of our constitutional rights, but another vote should bring cloture (no more debate, and a filibuster and veto-proofing ending the MCA). If the GOP is good for anything, it's blocking the will of the American people and the majority in the Senate.


The only other president to do this was president Abraham Lincoln, and the Supreme Court of that time ruled against him, even in-the-midst of the American Civil War. Of course, we also know what happened to Lincoln on April 15th of 1865, though it's unlikely that George W. Bush will face a similar fate--he's not worth martyring, nor worth the effort. That's got to hurt, considering his sky-high image of himself. Has he spoken with God lately? Perhaps the line is busy, or the Red Bat phone is malfunctioning. Maybe Commissioner Gordon is on vacation.

The vote was just four-away from ending the suspension of Habeas Corpus (56 yeas-43 nays), so it's likely that the next attempt will be successful. But we need to start isolating the Republican incumbents who are voting against an end to the Military Commissions Act, and writing and communicating our feelings about their votes. It's time they explained themselves, and this banging of the same drum of "fighting the war on terrorism" isn't valid. It never was. 800-years of political and legal tradition aren't endangered by foreign terrorists--they're endangered by the enemies of America within the press, Congress, and the White House.

They are the enemy within. Being the good lapdogs that they've been throughout much of this embarrassing political era, AP gives us the headline, "Senate Rejects Expanding Detainee Rights." The New York Times has done a responsible editorial, but then we get this headline: "Senate Blocks Detainees’ Rights Bill." I think we all know it's about much more than just the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison--and all the secret CIA prisons around the world that are still in-operation.

No genuine adherent of classic democratic principles should doubt the right of the detainees to adequate legal representation, but what about the rights of Americans? How do you know someone is truly guilty without reasonable due process? Our rights are impaired by the Military Commissions Act too. If we dispose of habeas corpus, then the 9/11 hijackers accomplished more than they could have ever dreamed possible, being ostensible "contractors" of the Saudi ruling-class. Reactionary politicians who used the attacks are America's real weakness, and it's time to remove more--if not all of them--in the next elections of 2008.

Their expediters are institutions like SAIC, Halliburton, Mitre, Blackwater, and individuals like the Ronald Rougheads of the world--the employees of profiteers who do the actual dirty work in the shadows. Five out of a total of forty-eight Republican Senators co-sponsored the bill to suspend the Military Commissions Act of 2006--Arlen Specter, who voted for it originally, was a primary co-sponsor with Sen. Leahy and Chris Dodd. At least Specter's learned his lesson, but could we have any more obvious indication that as a party, the GOP is against the time-honored traditions of democracy and justice that make us all 'Americans'?
Besides Mr. Specter, five other Republican Senators supported the measure. They were Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and John E. Sununu of New Hampshire. Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, also voted for it. (New York Times, 09.19.2007)
What most Americans aren't being told is that they--we--are all in danger of being legally held without any charges as long as the MCA stands. Habeas corpus is not simply applicable to "foreign combatants," but is now a deeply-impaired right for all Americans outside of the executive branch.

The Supreme Court has yet to debate and/or rule on much of this, though it's likely that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 will be voted-down on the next round in the Senate. Indeed, much o this is about ending any remaining political capital that Republicans grabbed in an obvious case of opportunism after the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

Too many Americans bought into it out of cowardice and fear. To still do so is worse than cowardice. Fortunately, we have institutions and social structures rooted in protecting our unique democratic traditions, and they've been fighting this trend before it even began in 2006. They've been on the front-lines over several decades:

The US Supreme Court agreed in June to examine the demands of war on terror suspects held without charge at Guantanamo jail. In May, more than 70 lawyers for terror suspects and academics urged lawmakers to restore the writ of habeas corpus to detainees. Critics say that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which rolled back habeas corpus provisions, is so broad that it might apply not only to terror suspects, but also to any legal resident of the United States, if the president declares them to be an "enemy combatant." (AFP, 09.19.2007)
The scoundrels' window is almost completely closed, and their political games are beginning to evaporate. Americans are finally awaking from their fearful-stupors and understanding that few threats are so great as to give away their rights to a handful of American demagogues who thought they were so close to seizing total power.

This should be the last time anyone is allowed to get so close, and therefore, handing-out sentences to the offenders is crucial. Unlike their victims, they should be afforded due process. The irony will be understated by the press, but obvious to nearly all Americans. The world is watching.


All that said, we are hardly out of the woods yet, and the clean-up job is just beginning. Every would-be tyrant who has either suspended or attempted to end habeas corpus has met a bad end, or suffered the fate of a cursed historical judgment as a scoundrel. The right to know why one has found themselves imprisoned, what the charges against them are, and who's charging them, is a human right. It has been a beacon to countless millions throughout the world who thirst for liberty.

Now we know that the GOP's incumbents have no regard for what is uniquely American (or Anglo-American), and that they are the enemies of humanity. This should have been obvious a very long time ago, but greed tends to blind people in all societies, at any given point in human history. The enemies of liberty know this and are always waiting for their chance, their opening.


Article One, Section Nine of the Constitution of the United States is clear on the suspension of Habeas Corpus: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." We're not experiencing rebellion or invasion, except from within--from the people demanding the suspension of habeas corpus. Any real external threats are both vague and hypothetical, which hardly warrants the suspension of habeas corpus. It's time to call the politicians who stalled the suspension the Military Commissions Act what they are: traitors.
“Today’s vote was a victory for those seeking to restore both the rule of law and our nation’s Constitution,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The Military Commissions Act of 2006 stripped away one of our most fundamental rights - to challenge your imprisonment by the government. While the amendment ultimately was not filibuster proof, a majority of senators have made it clear that they want to restore the right of habeas corpus. The ACLU has worked diligently, leading a coalition of support for the restoration of habeas corpus. That tireless work is beginning to pay off and will be vindicated once habeas is signed back into law.”The MCA stripped the constitutional right to habeas corpus from persons the president alone designates as enemy combatants. (CommonDreams.org, 09.19.2007)
Are you an "enemy combatant"? You could be if the president decides you are under the MCA. Will we find more of the supporters of the MCA in the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey? We already have--Senator David Vitter voted against the reinstatement of habeas corpus, and there will be others in both houses of Congress coming. Spooks like Ronald Roughead, however, are the ones to really watch and "out." They all need the spotlight put on them brightly, and harshly, as sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Sen. Larry E. Craig
--a man who likes cruising for ass with men in public bathrooms--voted "nay," as did Sen. David Vitter who prefers sex with women who aren't his wife. Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia (a Republican) appears not to have voted on the measure. Senator Christopher Dodd was one of the Democrats leading the charge on this measure--and a victim of a break-in of his own campaign offices this year. All of this trumps Nixon, and handily.


Sunday, September 02, 2007

Deborah Jeane Palfrey filing pro se "Motion for "Pretrial Conference to Consider Matters Relating to Classified Information"


"[N]o one of course ID’d them self as a member of the House of Saud, in such a situation. Folks from this part of the world [the Middle East]–unlike the Dick Morris’s in this country–do not brag or draw attention to their true identities. With this said, we had many, many clients from the Middle East; especially, prior to 9/11." --Jeane Palfrey (personal correspondence with the author, 09.02.2007)


Washington D.C.--This is a major-step in the legal predicament of the so-called "DC Madam," and one that could yield a significantly different version of the last fourteen years of American political and diplomatic history. Under "The Classified Information Procedures Act," it's possible that Ms. Palfrey and her civil attorney Montogmery Sibley Blair will be able to finally gain the right of discovery process in her case (the evidence for-or-against her). In a recent interview with Lori Price of Citizens for Legitimate Government, Palfrey dropped a real bombshell (though not to readers of this site):
My attorney, Mr. Sibley, and I, have very good reason to believe my case involves matters relating to national security and intelligence gathering operations. One has to remember I was in business in a city, which is home and host to some of the most powerful and connected men - not only in this country, but to foreign officials, dignitaries and businessmen from abroad for almost 13 years, from 1993 to 2006. Particularly, my firm was patronized by a significant number of Middle-Eastern clients over the years; most especially, prior to 9/11. I have contended from the onset and have stated accordingly on numerous occasions, that my situation has absolutely nothing to do with prostitution related issues. (www.legitgov.org, 09.01.2007)
This is a large part of why this case interested this writer from the start--it's possibly part of the nexus of a submerged war between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and could involve illegal warrantless surveillance of Ms. Palfrey under the questionable stewardship of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at various points (though it extends-back to the tenure of AG Ashcroft).

But we all know that all roads lead to the White House in these matters, where the responsibility for all of this resides.
Like most Americans who watched the airliners slamming-into the World Trade Center towers on that fateful day six-years-ago, I had to wonder "why"? "Who did it?" All these years, we've known: it was the Saudi government, utilizing middle-class nationals (a number with backgrounds as career professionals, presumably with access to power), religious fanatics.


Why is Saudi Arabia one of the most religiously fanatical Muslim nations? The answer is fairly simple. It's a form of social control in-lieu of a legitimate system of government, and the regime can be counted as a high-tech version of Medieval theocratic tyranny. There is domestic opposition within the Saudi state, and not all of it is Al-Qaeda-like groups and cells. As Dr. Noam Chomsky stated in an interview this May, ..."people don't give up." That's correct--they join Madrases and terrorists cells.

The individuals joining some of these groups are trying to take down the Saudi Royal family
and the ruling clans of Saudi Arabia in order to achieve their liberty in some fashion. They're keenly aware that without the support of the United States and other Western and international powers, this ruling system wouldn't exist. Thus begins a terrible and fateful dance, because this also plays-into how Middle Eastern politics has traditionally worked for ages: blaming the outsider rather than extending reform to the people of Saudi Arabia and the region.


For the House of Saud to continue their rule, they must both seek the support of the State Department, while simultaneously casting the United States as "the Great Satan." American intrusion into Iraq and Afghanistan is a legitimate concern for nation who has traditionally been crucial to keeping global oil prices lower. One should also reexamine the issue of American military bases in the region, one of the prime catalysts in the creation of Al-Qaeda, a rallying-call to extremism.

The Saudi hierarchy must also correctly view the invasions as a gambit by Western petrochemical interests to control oil in the region. But all this aside, when domestic problems in a Middle Eastern nation reach an apex through obvious misrule, you blame the outsider, and in our case, the guilt is certainly earned. It's not just plausible--Saudis understand better than most Americans that the regime of the Sauds wouldn't exist without the support of the State Department, Congress, and sundry other Western corporate interests. Added to this mix is that all nations have natural competing interests.

This author believes that Jeane Palfrey's legal predicament could play-into this nexus of international criminality and misrule. Particular intelligence entities are likely involved. It remains to be seen exactly how it does, but we could be seeing something akin to the unfolding of an American Profumo scandal...ora Dreyfus affair. Treason could be part of the equation. America could be having a full-on identity crisis very soon, perhaps much sooner than you think. And how much of it would we know about were it not for bumbling old George W. Bush?

The American public has a right to know its history--it's crucial to the continuance and functioning of any democracy. At-minimum, the declassification of information in the case of Ms. Palfrey will protect due process in this nation, as well as maintaining the real world security of the public with various disclosures. This new motion in her case could be a beginning into what 9/11 really means to all of us, not the spoon-fed versions. Nothing less will do. This is not about prostitution, it never was. Senator Leahy, are you listening?
 
Citizens for Legitimate Government, 09.01.2007: http://www.legitgov.org/dc_madam_update_010907.html

Friday, August 24, 2007

Ed Norris: He won't talk (and neither will Rawstory)



WWW--It would behoove Ms. Alexandrovna and associates to publish her findings from Rawstory's twelve hours of interviews with the former Baltimore Police Commissioner (search this blog under his name for previous articles). You don't conduct that many "sittings" if the interviewee says nothing of value.

But let's be fair: If it's nothing, just a lot of self-serving garbage, fine, don't run it. If it is significant, then let it be part of the public record. Palfrey has communicated to this author that Norris has been trying to get his side of his predicament out to the press for awhile. He does have his own radio and television shows, after all.

Norris clearing the air might clarify areas of Deborah Jeane Palfrey's own predicament (she's parted-ways this week with her court appointed criminal representation, Preston Burton, over "irreconcilable differences" [Ed., 08.28.2008--Like the fact that she was probably suicidal.]). I'm unaware of anyone else who has gotten Edward T. Norris to talk as much as Rawstory. I'm assuming that they there were ostensibly about his own plea deal and the events surrounding his own legal predicament.

At some point, they hit-a-bump in some a priori assumptions, and had to scuttle the story. [Ed., 08.28.2008--Alexandrovna explained to me in an angry e-mail that Palfrey and her civil attorney had failed to meet her as planned by a prior-agreement. She also mentioned things that could be construed as a violation of a confidentiality agreement.] There is also another possibility that could run parallel with the aforementioned issues--that Rawstory cannot release the materials under a confidentiality agreement.
There might also be fears on-his-part of government retaliation regarding his original plea deal. Was Palfrey part of this deal? She has made comments that it might, but has also mentioned that Norris would deny any involvement with her.

Where does Ed Norris fit-in in the saga of "Hookergate"? Does he fit-in at all, or is he just a red-herring? This writer would like to know, and he's sure that the public would too. Where does Norris fit-in with the murder of assistant U.S. attorney Jonathan Luna? Does he at all? Ms. Palfrey has contended there might be a connection between all-three. Do the interviews with Norris support any of this? Again, it's like a dialogue with the Sphinx.

What did Ed Norris say in those interviews? Surely, a journalist and their associates would not spend that much time if he hadn't said something important initially in the first hours of their conversations. The interviews should be turned-over to author Bill Keisling, and other interested researchers, it could be a motherlode of information. Of course, Mr. Norris could just start talking to other journalists, so it's on him as well.


If there's nothing in them, allay our fears, and be forthcoming about it. There was a time when this writer really felt Rawstory was doing their best--and they may be doing so regardless of my suspicions--but they've raised some flags. It could just be journalistic method on-their-part, or it could be something insignificant. My hope is that it's something insignificant, and perhaps Mr. Norris needs to contact Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to clarify things. There could be a lot her concerning the Bush Justice Department and so many other transgressions that they've commited in the name of upholding the law.

Former U.S. attorney Thomas DiBiagio might have to be subpoenaed as well, since he was involved in the prosecution of Mr. Norris. He was also acting U.S. attorney when one of his assistant U.S. attorneys--Jonathan Luna--was murdered. DiBiagio was also the first U.S. attorney fired by the Bush administration, since the number is really nine, not eight, as misreported by much of the mainstream media.

It's not hard to fathom why a defendant wouldn't be forthcoming about all the details of their case, regardless of their guilt or innocence. What's disappointing is that many in the press began with a presumption of guilt as soon as this story broke in October of 2006--just weeks-away from the U.S. attorney firings. We should be looking to see if there is any connection here with all of this.
Ask Ed: http://www.ednorris.com/

Ask Larisa: http://www.rawstory.com/ , then ask yourself.

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Kenneth D. Ackerman's "Young J. Edgar" (review)


Reading Kenneth D. Ackerman's book, one has to wonder why the "Palmer Raids" weren't called the "Hoover-Caminetti Raids." It's unlikely that there will be a better telling of the Palmer Raids--and by his almost central role in them--the early-years and rise of J. Edgar Hoover within the bureaucracy of the Department of Justice. Few have ever achieved the power that Hoover did at such a tender age (a mere 24 when Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer tapped him to run the new Radical Division in that fateful year of 1919), and Mr. Ackerman's keen eye for important anecdotes, social scope, personal details, and the importance of key-documents serves this book well.

It's more than just important historiography, it's an accessible treatment on our history, and is required reading for those of us who value our liberties and eschew the politics of the "strong man" and frontier justice.
Most of the book covers the Palmer Raids (late-1919-to-late-1920) themselves, but we learn a number of things about J. Edgar Hoover's early-years that appear to have escaped some authors: his mother's stern authoritarianism and emotional coldness, the emphasis on punishment in Hoover's psychology and behavior that emerges early in his youth (Hoover loved attending lurid trials), a possible African-American ancestor, the effects of his father's mental illness on his behavior at home, the demographics of Washington D.C. and his own neighborhood (Hoover's own during the early-part of the 20th century was populated with Blacks and Whites), the racism of the times towards immigrants (especially Russian, thanks to the October revolution in 1917), the working-class, and Blacks. Hoover--and most of his contemporaries in government--held these xenophobic views. They were very common in America at that time.


Like Hitler, Hoover's father was a government clerk, a functionary, and Hoover modeled himself as the ultimate apolitical bureaucrat over time. Ackerman brings the era Hoover grew-up in with a storyteller's skill and a historiographer's discipline. The years covering the Palmer Raids are brought to breathtaking life, and the parallels with our own war on terror are inescapable without any need on the author's part in citing them.

This serves the text well, as it never lapses into the pedantic or the fantastical, as many Hoover biographies tend towards. What we get is what we really know about the Palmer Raids--the attorneys and government bureaucrats who fought the illegal nature of the raids and subsequent detentions, their effects on people and their liberties, Hoover's role in them (a central one), the major events of 1919 that contributed to their creation, and their enduring legacy.


Was the threat as great as people thought at the time? One gets the feeling that some in the federal bureaucracy were still fighting WWI, a period replete with its own abuses of civil liberties and crackdowns under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, as well as the Immigration Act of 1918 that gave the Palmer Raids some of their dubious legal foundation. As with most postwar periods, a deep recession occurred, and labor violence was prevalent. So was fear of the American left and immigrant communities. Ackerman makes a good case that it certainly appeared revolution and chaos were nigh, and notes that the issues are the same now as they were then.


Context is everything. In January of 1919, Seattle was in a general strike that lasted around a week, while in March, the Third International was declaring an international revolution with communists (Bolshevism directed by Lenin) at its vanguard. Then, there were the "May Day" bombings that targeted J.P. Morgan, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a Rockefeller, four cabinet members, and a commissioner of immigration. And there was more-to-come. A police strike in Boston, a national coal and steel strike (imagine the effect of 1 million going-on-strike in a crucial industry today), and more bombings throughout the nation, even as late as September of 1920 when the hysteria had already died down.

It's a minor-quibble, but another aspect of the raids (including those of the Lusk committee in New York City) and bombings could have been stimulated by real espionage, some of it by Russian operatives, double-agents, as well as informants and provocateurs working for Great Britain's SIS office. It's a little-known sidebar, and Ackerman does include American Military Intelligence in the picture, so he has some of it covered. Hoover was probably aware of this angle, and had files from Military Intelligence on one of the possible players in the September, 1920 bombing of Wall Street:
Kurt Jahnke.

Hoover may even have known from existing-files from his friends at Military Intelligence of the possible involvement of Sidney Reilly (and many other players) in wartime profiteering, espionage, and the bombing of munitions dumps at the Black Tom Terminal in New Jersey, 1916. He might have been aware of Reilly's possible connections to some of the bombings of 1919 in the United States. New York City was a hub for international commerce and espionage--frequently the same thing--during the era, and most of the players were double and triple-agents. This is the lot of the informant/provocateur and secret agent. Jahnke also worked for Sidney Reilly. Again, a minor-quibble, and easily a subject for another book. This absence does nothing to impair "Young J. Edgar."

Jahnke is directly-linked to both Black Tom and the Wall Street bombings, as well as Reilly and various spy agencies at that time. The Black Tom bombing is usually ascribed to "German" saboteurs, but the event was also useful as one more action that pushed America into siding with Great Britain in WWI. The seizing of a Sinn Fein activist during the raids also tends towards these possibilities. British intelligence had been working overtime towards getting Americans involved in the Great War. With the war over, and Russia in a revolutionary stasis, British interests were eying the Baku oil fields, and wanted to dominate Russia economically.

They were hardly alone: so did the American State Department and sundry other business interests. One of them was J.P. Morgan. The 1920 bombing of Wall Street came at a propitious moment for Britain--it likely sealed the deportation of Ludwig Martens, then trying to gain recognition for the Soviet regime in America. Major banking and business interests were interested. The Red Scare killed any possibility for recognition for at least a decade. Then there's the war we almost had between Great Britain and Japan during the early-1920s...


In March of 1919, Hoover was made A. Mitchell Palmer's assistant at the Department of Justice, and would shortly head the Bureau of Investigation's Radical Division after June of that year. It's just one of several fateful mistakes made by appointed politicians in our nation's history, and one-of-many that would propel J. Edgar Hoover into a position of unchallenged power and authority for nearly fifty years. Much of this was dumb luck. Even a good number of Hoover's challengers during the legal fight against the raids seemed to underestimate his role, and he did as much as he could over the years to hide it. The truth is, he was practically the architect of the Palmer Raids, and his subsequent career almost plays like a rerun of them, even decades later.


Ackerman asks us an important question as citizens of a democracy: how do we balance public safety and civil liberties in a time of upheaval and unrest? We should be wary of those in public office who feel they know all the answers to these questions in the immediate aftermath of any terrorist attack or bombing. One has to wonder if the raids would have happened at all had a bomber not tripped on his way to Palmer's front-door the night of June 2nd, 1919. Attorney General Palmer wasn't the only person on the list of the terrorists. Nearly all were prominent politicians or businessmen. To most, it appeared that Bolshevik revolution was spreading throughout the globe and onto American shores in the form of immigration.


Today, we don't really know what the threat even constitutes, but the reactions have been not only similar to those during the years 1919-1920, they have gone much further. At the time of this writing, habeas corpus is still in-suspension by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a piece of legislation that Mr. Ackerman astutely lists in his notes. With the Senate Judiciary hearings into the U.S. Attorney firing scandal (that's now being connected by committee chair Sen. Patrick Leahy to the warrantless wiretapping programs of the Bush administration), we're finding that people of the same age as Hoover circa-1919 are being given unparalleled power at the Department of Justice and other sectors of the federal bureaucracy. We're only beginning to discover what they've done in the name of fighting terrorism, now that our current national hysteria has begun to abate.

Monica Goodling and several other appointees at Justice were being consciously culled from Regents School of Law in-the-aftermath of September 11th, 2001. We should be asking ourselves why. "Are we creating new Hoovers?" asks Kenneth Ackerman. We very well could be. Were it not for legal scholars and attorneys like Felix Frankfurter, Clarence Darrow, as well as men like Secretary of Labor William Wilson, or assistant Sec. of Labor Louis F. Post, the precedents of the Palmer Raids would have stood. Were it not for them--as Mr. Ackerman notes--our very concepts and legal traditions surrounding civil liberties would be as impoverished as they were in 1919. As in Hoover's day, the key to curing unaccountable power will be in finding the incriminating files.


5,000-10,000 human beings were shunted into detention centers in various locations throughout the country without access to legal representation, or even a working-toilet under the Palmer Raids. Hundreds of "radical aliens" were deported from Ellis Island in a horrible inversion of the American dream. Can it happen again? In various-forms under the war on terror, it already has.

J-7 would like to thank Mr. Ackerman and publicist Gene Taft for allowing us the honor of reviewing this very important book. "Young J. Edgar-Hoover, The Red Scare, and the Assault on Civil Liberties," is available now from Carroll & Graf, at $28.95. Ignore its message at your own peril.

Saturday, June 30, 2007

JEFFREY A. TAYLOR: U.S. ATTORNEY IN THE PALFREY CASE AT JUSTICE, MAN OF THE HOUR


"Here, you're much closer to the casework."
--Jeffrey Taylor, Oct. 16th, 2006 to the San Diego Union-Tribune [Ed., 09.13.2008--Making me feel better about my own diction.]

Washington D.C.--Jeffrey A. Taylor is an under reported part of the U.S. Attorney scandal, and in the "Hookergate" scandal. His political credentials are well-known, and like Monica Goodling, he's served as counsel for one Alberto Gonzales. Like Tim Griffin, he was appointed by Gonzales under what was then a little-known section of the Patriot Act, surreptitiously added during a renewal of the bill on March 20th of 2006. Here's a partial-list that Common Dreams compiled in January:
Since last March, the administration has named at least nine U.S. attorneys with administration ties. None would agree to an interview. They include:

-Tim Griffin, 37, the U.S. attorney for Arkansas, who was an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove and a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

-Rachel Paulose, 33, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, who served briefly as a counselor to the deputy attorney general and who, according to a former boss, has been a member of the secretive, ideologically conservative Federalist Society.

-Jeff Taylor, 42, the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who was an aide to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and worked as a counselor to Gonzales and to former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

-John Wood, U.S. attorney in Kansas City, who's the husband of Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Julie Myers and an ex-deputy general counsel of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

-Deborah Rhodes, 47, the U.S. attorney in Mobile, Ala., who was a Justice Department counselor.

-Alexander Acosta, 37, the U.S. attorney in Miami, who was an assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil rights division and a protege of conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

-John Richter, 43, the U.S. attorney in Oklahoma City, who was the chief of staff for the Justice Department's criminal division and acting assistant attorney general.

-Edward McNally, the U.S. attorney in southern Illinois, who was a senior associate counsel to President Bush.

-Matt Dummermuth, the U.S. attorney in Iowa, who was a Justice Department civil rights lawyer.

Some of these appointees have drawn praise from local skeptics and later won Senate confirmation for permanent appointments. (CommonDreams.org, 01.27.2007)
Again, just a partial-list. That's right: Taylor worked under Ashcroft and Gonzales in different capacities. He knows the ropes of policy--and he's right at the heart of the Palfrey case. What's amazing is that he was appointed the day that her case "went into hyper drive" by AG Gonzales. This is a stunning fact, and while it doesn't prove anything conclusive, it's smoke and should be investigated by the Judiciary committees.

There could have been extraordinary reasons--besides 9/11 and terrorism--to create the ability to appoint these interim U.S. Attorneys--damage control on all-fronts, including an already compromised GOP tanking thanks to massive exposure in "Hookergate." Elements of the bureaucracy probably already knew that Palfrey was arranging the purchase of the flat in Germany by August, with some major panic over her wiring-of-funds after September 28th. From Taylor's DOJ.gov profile, in toto:
Jeffrey A. Taylor was appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales on September 22, 2006. He was sworn in and took office on September 29, 2006.

From 2002 to 2006, Mr. Taylor served as Counselor to Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Gonzales, where he handled a broad array of matters, including oversight of the Department’s national security, terrorism, and criminal litigation and policy, as well as the operations of the Department’s law enforcement components.

Mr. Taylor served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California from 1995–1999, where he prosecuted a variety of criminal matters, including international drug trafficking organizations. From 1999-2002, Mr. Taylor served as Counsel to the U.S. Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, working on issues including criminal law, terrorism, and national security.

Mr. Taylor began his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable John C. Mowbray, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nevada, from 1991–1992, and then worked for three years in private practice. He obtained his Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School and his Bachelor of Arts degree from Stanford University. Mr. Taylor, and his wife, Marcia Taylor, are residents of the District of Columbia. (usdoj.gov, "Biography of US Attorney")
But what makes Jeffrey A. Taylor a real powder keg, and a truly political appointee? He's the U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C., the man who will have to expedite the subpoenas issued by Senator Patrick Leahy and Rep. John Conyers in the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. This man is going to be at the center of everything after July 9th, you can bet your paycheck on it. He was appointed to put out a lot of fires.

Jeffrey A. Taylor is one of the Bush administration's insurance policies, a brake on the rule of law now that there is no GOP majority in Congress to protect and obstruct for them. They saw the wave coming at the White House. There's a good chance Mr. Taylor will be removed from his job or resign at some point during these hearings and investigations. It's just a matter of when. If he's wise, he'll recuse himself from all of the aforementioned, including Ms. Palfrey's case.

February 14th background on 14 US Attorneys serving without Senate approval: http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/2/14/9546/72609

Jeffrey A. Taylor's DOJ page: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/dc/US_Attorney/index.html

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

TEXT-BODY OF "DC MADAM'S" APPEAL TO HOUSE & SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES


CENTER FOR FORFEITURE LAW

1629 K Street, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006

MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY 202-508-3699
202-478-0371 (E-FAX)

SIBLEY@CIVILFORFEITURE.COM ...
June 26, 2007

Via Fax (202) 224-9516
Honorable Patrick Leahy
Att: Kristine Lucius
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 ...


Via Fax 202-225-7680
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
2138 Rayburn House Off ice Building
Washington, DC 20515


Re: Deborah Jeane Palfrey, a/k/a “The D.C. Madam” & The Civil Asset
Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000


Greetings: I write to advise your committees of the flagrant disregard by federal Judge Gladys Kessler, and the D.C. District Court of Appeals of Public Law No: 106-185, which is popularly known as the “Civil Asset Reform Act of 2000” and is codified at 18 U.S.C. §983 et seq. In particular, by enacting 18 U.S.C. §983(f) “Release Of Seized Property”, Congress imposed upon a district court a duty – within 30 days of a motion to return property – to determine if a claimant’s seized property should be “immediately” returned to her.

In Jeane’s case, on October 4, 2006, all of her real and personal property was seized by the U.S. Government upon the allegations of a confidential informant. On November 24, 2006, she made a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §983(f), demanding return of her seized property thereby triggering the Congressionally-imposed thirty (30) day deadline for Judge Kessler to resolve that motion. Remarkably, Judge Kessler denied as moot Jeane's motion to return property on January 8, 2007, apparently relying upon her standing order which rendered all motions moot whenever an amended complaint is filed.

Jeane promptly moved on January 10, 2007, to vacate the January 8, 2007, order as violating the Rules Enabling Act. Additionally, having received no response to the January 10th motion, Jeane filed a second motion to return property on February 27, 2007. To date, two hundred days (200) later, Judge Kessler has not ruled on the two motions to return property and has now stayed Jeane’s forfeiture matter for six (6) months.


Honorable Patrick Leahy
Honorable John Conyers, Jr. June 26, 2007

Page 2



When Jeane sought to appeal this failure of Judge Kessler to resolve the motion to return property as §983(f) contemplates, Judge Kessler held: “[Jeane] also makes a curious argument that ‘the Court does not have jurisdiction to refuse to rule on claimant’s pending motion [to return property].’ All that can be said of this argument is that it is wrong. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the parties; of course it has jurisdiction to enter a stay of all proceedings in the case.” In other words, Judge Kessler has decided that she can ignore §983(f)’s thirty (30) day requirement as Congress’ expression of a right contained in §983(f) is nothing more than aspirational to her.

Additionally, seeking relief from Judge Kessler blatant refusal to rule as Congress has determined appropriate by enacting the thirty (30) day ruling requirement, Jeane sought relief from the D.C. Court of Appeals on April 9, 2007. To date, the Court has refused to rule upon Jeane’s petition. Finally, yesterday the United States Supreme Court refused to address this ignoring of the statute in their Case No.: 06A1110.

As a consequence, Jeane – who property was seized last October solely upon the allegations of unidentified confidential informants – has been rendered indigent, and declared such by the district court. While she now as very competent counsel appointed to represent her in her criminal matter, she still is at the mercy of Judge Kessler for disbursements to pursue her defense, rather than have her own assets available to that end.

Simply stated, Jeane’s case highlights the continued overreaching by the Department of Justice with the complicity of the Article III actors to permit the use of the civil forfeiture process to deny basic due process rights to citizens. Such concern caused your Committees and then Congress seven years ago to address this problem with legislation including §983(f).

Yet now, Jeane’s property has been seized for over seven months without the requisite review of the propriety of such a seizure.As an attorney who practices extensively in the civil forfeiture arena, I can state that Jeane’s predicament is not unusual. Accordingly, your Committees must revisit whether CAFRA is achieving the goals it was meant to reach, or whether it is simply a set of rights without a remedy, as Jeane’s case patently demonstrates.

I am of course available to answer any questions or concerns regarding this aspect – or any other aspect of Jeane’s case. signed, [Montgomery Blair Sibley]

Monday, June 25, 2007

SUPREME COURT DENIES "DC MADAM" PALFREY STAY ON CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: UNCONSTITUTIONAL? ILLEGAL DECISION? PARTISAN?


J-7--Today's newsletter from Ms. Palfrey has brought information on a setback in her case. Perhaps Justice Thomas's willingness to hear the motion was another CYA affair to hide some of his own partisanship (it didn't work). No, I don't think he covered himself, Scalia or even Roberts very well:
The United States Supreme Court denied my motion (Case #06A1110) to stay the criminal proceeding and return my case to the civil courts, this morning. The motion before the Supreme Court involved a time sensitive Congressional mandate, which clearly states that individuals who have had their property seized via the civil asset forfeiture process – as I have - are to receive a hearing within 30 days, once such a motion is made. In my situation, the motion was submitted twice to the lower District Court and ignored twice by the presiding judge, Judge Gladys Kessler. I now have gone well over 200 days, since last fall without any due process in the matter.

Based upon this morning’s decision, my civil attorney, Mr. Montgomery B. Sibley will be contacting post haste Senator Patrick Lehey, Chairperson of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
[Ed.-my emphasis]
The game is to keep the game going for as long as possible [Ed., 07.03.2008--particularly in Palfrey's case, but the govt. also had motives in this direction.] This all has the (ear)marks of the Bush administration's attempts at subjugating the federal bureaucracy in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001. It appears all those anti-terrorism laws have allowed for unparalleled excesses and corruption.

Part of controlling the bureaucracy--obviously--is
to remove "disloyal" elements, replacing them with one's own adherents. One could call it "seeding" the organs of government with your own agents (of change--thanks Regents!).


All roads appear to lead to Rome (the Bush administration). It's time that "journalists," bloggers, citizen journalists, and all interested media start asking Edward T. Norris and Thomas DiBiagio (the first U.S. Attorney fired in the ongoing-scandal) about what they think their place in all of this is. Ignore this at your peril.

This newest development can also be read @: www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com

Postscript, 07.03.2008: Ultimately, the client and counsel would subpoena Sen. Leahy, a nutty move that was discouraged by myself and others. It would prove to be a disastrous approach that yielded nothing and cut-off any potential for redress from the legislative branch.

Friday, June 08, 2007

S.185: RESTORE HABEAS CORPUS ACT


www.democrats.com
--The folks at democrats.com are running a petition urging all members of Congress to pass this bill, restoring habeas corpus not just for those detained by the United States, but for every American citizen. The bill's sponsor is Arlen Specter, and he deserves his due on this one. At least he's willing to fix what he originally neglected.

He wisely sponsored it with Sen. Patrick Leahy and 18 other Democratic Senators on December 5th, 2006 as S.4081 during the ill-fated 109th Congress, and it has continued with its resubmission as S.185 by Specter on January 4th of this year. Former-Sen. John Edwards wasn't one of them for the original bill and Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is missing from the vote in the current version. The question is: why?

Beyond Specter, there are no
current GOP cosponsors. Nearly every Democratic candidate for president currently in the Senate are sponsoring it, but a good number of Democratic Senators are AWOL. What's so controversial about an 800-year-old tradition? It's curious, but they might have felt that the bill's language wasn't assertive enough.


Otherwise, this is bipartisanship with substance. This blog urges everyone to consider signing the petition, Congress has been dawdling in their pledge to restore this fundamental right in Anglo-American law. It has been the basis of the liberties we've enjoyed for nearly 800 years. It should never have been suspended, but was done in an atmosphere of haste and political panic by opportunists in the GOP and the Bush administration.

This is all to eliminate "the Military Commissions Act," hastily passed by the dying 109th Congress on September 28th (in the House) and 29th (in the Senate) of 2006, in gross-defiance of the will of the American public--it surely figures-into the end of the Republican majority less-than two months later, just another nail. Voters should recognize that current GOP incumbents are still holding their un-American viewpoint on habeas corpus, and vote accordingly in 2008. John McCain and Joe Lieberman voted to suspend habeas corpus, and a surprising number of Democrats...and one Sen. Arlen Specter.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

GONZALES TO TURN OVER ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE DOCUMENTS TODAY: ARE THEY RELEVANT AND COMPLETE? ARE THEY GENUINE?


"It's never been the case where we said we would never provide the access." --Attorney General Alberto Gonzalers lying to the press again today. (AP, 1.31.2007)


Washington D.C.--No longer displaying his usual arrogance before Congress, ostensible Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is turning-over what are purported to be key-documents of the program. Are they everything we need to know? Doubtful. The papers are being forwarded to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the two highest-ranking members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The documents won't be made public (much to the chagrin of the ACLU), but we can rest-assured that Senator Leahy will have a lot to say about their contents, as will Arlen Specter. But will they give an accurate overview of the program? This isn't likely based on past-actions by the Bush administration--even recent ones.

But will it be dueling banjo time on the hill? Specter's ears are more jug-like, so I guess we know which character he is from Deliverance..
.
The question will be interpretation, with a radically-divergent viewpoint based on the threats caused to the GOP by the Bush administration. Gonzales has claimed that Bush administration has never attempted to withhold the information, a patent lie:
"The records will be given to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) who two weeks ago lambasted Gonzales for refusing to turn over documents that even the FISA Court's presiding judge had no objection to releasing." (AP, 01.31.2007)
And so, there it is. Even the foot-dragging Arlen Specter is calling Gonzales and the Bush administration liars. This would be accurate, and taking them at their word isn't going to work. Expect some stunning revelations that could shake the very foundations of our political culture, just as they did with Watergate--only worse. The good thing is, we know about this program, and sunlight is the best disinfectant.


Thursday, January 18, 2007

BUSH CAPITULATES ON ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING PROGRAM: HANDS-OVER TO FISA COURT


“I intend to move forward with the committee’s review of all aspects of this program’s legality and effectiveness.” --Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, yesterday. (NYT, 01.17.2007)


"The president must fully inform Congress and the American people about the contours...authorizing the surveillance program but also the program itself."
--Sen. Patrick Leahy at today's Judiciary Committe hearings.

Washington D.C.--It's official: The New York Times, and virtually every wire service, are reporting that "it's over." I didn't write on this yesterday, because it didn't seem legitimate, but today's news seems to confirm this has happened. With oncoming oversight, hearings, and investigations, it's unlikely the Bush administration would have survived the total exposure of the program:
"The Bush administration, in a surprise reversal, said on Wednesday that it had agreed to give a secret court jurisdiction over the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program and would end its practice of eavesdropping without warrants on Americans suspected of ties to terrorists." (NYT, 01.17.2007)
One question: Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has commented that an infrastructure of databases holding the information already gathered on American citizens exists. What's going to happen to this infrastructure and the information therein?

Americans should breathe more easily that Senator Leahy heads this committee and the hearings--he voted against virtually every questionable-action in the "War on Terror" the Bush administration has forwarded, including the approval for the war in Iraq and questionable sections of the Patriot Acts.
But, the New York Times knew about the program for at least a year when they finally revealed its existence autumn of 2005. They aren't heroes in this at all, and their role in the continuation of the programs should be investigated thoroughly.

The information should all be destroyed, nothing less will do. It seems that Alberto "Speedy" Gonzales (Eppa, eppa!) was scheduled to speak before the House Judiciary Committee today--headed by one Patrick Leahy, the man Vice President Cheney told, "Go fuck yourself." The illegal program always violated the 1978 FISA law that requires oversight from the "secret court" (not anymore) for approval of warrants to do said surveillance--it upholds the Fourth amendment, while the Bush administration does not.

Gonzales is getting grilled as I write this, it's entertaining. Here's to more hearings, it's been too long since a GOP President was dragged before Congress. But there had better be substantial-results, and the public would be wise to remember who fights any reforms, sanctions, and convictions where there is sufficient evidence.


The illegal program began in October of 2001--when they knew they could do it. After all, the American public and the GOP-majority gave the President a blank-check, remember? I'm sure those of you who did...don't. We told-you-so. Knowing the administration's MO, this is just a shift, and the court is likely compromised in a way that still allows them to proceed with the program as it has been formerly-constituted, but this is being seen as a "preempt" to deflect damage from the hearings, and to sink an ACLU lawsuit:
A Justice Department official said the department would file a motion with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, arguing that the court’s review of the issue in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union “is now moot” in light of this week’s developments. (ibid)
Only hearings, investigations, broad-declassification, and oversight by Congress will end the warrantless wiretapping programs. It appears that one of the FISA judges has been induced to side-with the administration, but more investigation will be needed to see how the court actually functions now...if it does at all.

This is all a big-problem for the President and his administration, since we can assume they're lying that all of the programs have stopped. Never cry wolf unless there really is one present. So much for the "unitary executive", this toxic ideology is about to end in an ugly way. The Bush administration still contends the program was legal. You, I and every congressperson know that the Bush administration's tendency towards classification was merely a means to provide a cover for illegal-activities and a rollback of our civil liberties.

They tried to seize total power in a democracy. This is treasonous. One has to ask: how-many of the administration's enemies were surveilled?


President Roosevelt is known from past declassifications to have initiated-this behavior in 1940, it has a long-history with the Executive.
I predict the Bush administration added a new-innovation to the Executive-drive for "total information awareness" (TIA)--they used it for insider-trading for themselves and some of their backers.