March 28, 2024 / by 

 

Why Would DOJ Oppose Net Neutrality … Now?

Mcjoan has a post on how the DOJ intervened all of a sudden into the FCC’s consideration of Net Neutrality. As she points out, there’s something unusual about DOJ’s intervention: it came after the comment period had closed.

It was a curious filing, as IP Democracy’s Cynthia Brumfield describes:

What’s curious about the filing is that, first, it’s an ex parte, orlate, submission in the FCC’s Inquiry on Broadband Practices, mostcommonly known as the FCC’s net neutrality proceeding. DOJ could havefiled comments along with the rest of the world by July 16, thedeadline for all submissions, but it didn’t. Why DOJ waited until nowis an interesting, probably unanswerable question.

A number of people in the comments suggest DOJ intervened as pay-off for the telecoms’ help on our NSA spying program. But I don’t think that can explain why DOJ missed the deadline. I can understand not wanting to file anti-net neutrality comments right before Congress debates whether or not to give the telecoms retroactive immunity for helping our government to spy on us illegally. So that might explain why DOJ wouldn’t submit its comments in mid-July, when Congress was busy discussing amendments to FISA.

Except that Congress is again about to discuss amendments to FISA, specifically immunity for the telecoms. And a lot of people in Congress are probably rethinking their vote, having been chewed out by constituents for it while marching in the Labor Day parade. Having the telecoms made out to be worse players right now, just before the debate, isn’t going to help telecom get their immunity and their private Internets.

In other words, the FISA amendment probably doesn’t explain the timing.

I can’t say I can explain the timing, mind you. But there are two events that have happened between July 16 and yesterday which might explain the timing. First, Gonzales resigned (though he’s still making trouble at DOJ). Also, Ed Gillespie, the big telecom lobbyist, just assumed most of Karl Rove’s portfolio on Monday morning.

Did the Lobbyist-in-Chief–who until June was working for the US Telecom Association–have any say over whether DOJ supports Net Neutrality?


They Won’t Put Their Lies in Writing

Well, I guess that’ll make it harder to prosecute General Petraeus for lying to Congress.

In the latest twist to the ongoing saga over the Petraeus White House report, a senior military official tells the Washington Times today that there will actually be no report at all:

A senior military officer said there will be nowritten presentation to the president on security and stability inIraq. “There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them bytestimony,” the officer said.

The only hard copy will be Gen. Petraeus’ opening statement toCongress, scheduled for Monday, along with any charts he will use inexplaining the results of the troop surge in Baghdad over the pastseveral months.

[snip]

While Petraeus’ statement to Congress will be made available,the public will not know what information he is providing to PresidentBush. The lack of transparency over Petraeus’ “report” will onlyintensify the high level of skepticism surrounding his statistics.

UPDATE: In a recent hearing, Sen. Norm Coleman(R-MN) said he recently met with Gen. Petraeus and was shown “thedata.” Coleman said the data is “very clear about a reduction inviolence. General Petraeus has those charts,” Coleman explained. Apparently, those charts will not be for public consumption.

You see, I’m sure if we had those charts, then 1) we’d be able to point out how deceptive they were while Petraeus was in front of Congress and 2) we’d be able to show that Petraeus ignored real data to put together those charts and fake 75% decreases in violence.

At some point Democratic Members of Congress need to start calling this charade what it is: a willful intent to lie to Congress. And leave almost no paperwork that might mean Petraeus would get caught.


Our Latest Rent-a-Thuggish-Sheikh in Iraq

Bush_and_risha_2I have little wisdom to add to this Abu Aardvark post, but I wanted to make sure people saw it:

It’s kind of lost in the shuffle of the coming battle over thevarious Iraq reports, but I find myself morbidly fascinated by thephotos and reports which have circulated in the Iraqi press aboutBush’s meeting in Anbar with the controversial head of the AnbarSalvation Council Sattar Abu Risha.   The pictures themselves speakvolumes:  look at Bush’s shit-eating grin and Abu Risha’s detachedcontempt, and figure out which is the supplicant in this scenario. 

An hour with Bush was really quite a coup for Sattar Abu Risha.   The head of the Anbar Salvation Council has a rather unsavory reputation as one of the shadiest figures inthe Sunni community, and as recently as June was reportedly on his way out.  As a report in Time described him,

Sheikh Sattar, whose tribe is notorious for highway banditry, is alsobuilding a personal militia, loyal not to the Iraqi government but onlyto him. Other tribes — even those who want no truck with terrorists —complain they are being forced to kowtow to him. Those who refuse riskbeing branded as friends of al-Qaeda and tossed in jail, or worse. InBaghdad, government delight at the Anbar Front’s impact on al-Qaeda istempered by concern that the Marines have unwittingly turned SheikhSattar into a warlord who will turn the province into his personalfiefdom.

In June, Abu Risha’s position in the Anbar Salvation Council came under a fairly intense internal challenge.  As the Washington Post reported at the time, 

Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, 35, a leader of the Dulaim confederation, thelargest tribal organization in Anbar, said that the Anbar SalvationCouncil would be dissolved because of growing internal dissatisfactionover its cooperation with U.S. soldiers and the behavior of thecouncil’s most prominent member, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha. Suleimancalled Abu Risha a "traitor" who "sells his beliefs, his religion andhis people for money."

That’s our guy.  That’s the pillar of America’s Sunni strategy, and a key player in Fred Kagan’s fantasy life.

The Administration has already played a bait and switch by pointing to growing Sunni opposition to Al Qaeda Iraq in Anbar as proof of the surge’s success, rather than real the political progress in Baghdad that surge backers promised. But if that "progress" in Anbar comes with the price tag of these kinds of bedfellows, it even further diminishes their claims.


Get Your Satellite Out of My Backyard

This will be interesting. The Dems are trying to prevent Chertoff from implementing his big brother satellite domestic spying program on October 1.

We are so concerned that, as the Department’s authorizing Committee,we are calling for a moratorium on the program until the manyConstitutional, legal and organizational questions it raises areanswered.

Today’s testimony made clear that there is effectivelyno legal framework governing the domestic use of satellite imagery forthe various purposes envisioned by the Department. Without this legalframework, the Department runs the risk of creating a program that –while well-intended – could be misused and violate Americans’Constitutional rights. The Department’s failure to include its PrivacyOfficer and the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer before thisJuly, almost two years after planning for the NAO began, only heightensour sense of concern. Privacy and civil liberties simply cannot remainan afterthought at the Department.

We ask that you provide theCommittee with the written legal framework under which the NAO willoperate, the standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the NAO –particularly those SOPs that will be used for requests by State, local,and tribal law enforcement, the privacy and civil liberties safeguardsthat will accompany any use of satellite imagery, and an analysis ofhow the program conforms with Posse Comitatus.

I say it’s interesting because it’s unclear whether this letter will have the legal umph to achieve its intent–preventing Chertoff from implementing his system. As I have pointed out before, Chertoff did not use the civil rights and privacy professionals in DHS to vet this system. And since those positions are statutory, presumably the failure to do so would predispose a court to rule Chertoff’s program illegal. And this letter, clearly states a legislative intent to prohibit the government from implementing the system. With all the Fourth Amendment concerns raised by this program, that, too, may be enough to prevent DHS from implementing it.

But that begs the question: are the Congressional Dems prepared to pass actual legislation preventing Chertoff from implementing this program? Of course, Kagro will probably be here in about 45 seconds to remind us that, unless Congress is willing to take real steps to make sure the Administration follows the law, any law would be moot anyway.


Were They Bypassing Gonzales, Too?

Marty Lederman points to this excerpt from Jack Goldsmith’s book at Slate. Goldsmith explains he only saw Alberto Gonzales disagree with David Addington once–and that Bush ended up siding with Addington.

Addington’s hard-line nonaccommodation stance always prevailed when thelawyers met to discuss legal policy issues in Alberto Gonzales’ office.During these meetings, Gonzales himself would sit quietly in his wingchair, occasionally asking questions but mostly listening as thequerulous Addington did battle with whomever was seeking to "go soft."It was Gonzales’ responsibility to determine what to advise thepresident after the lawyers had kicked the legal policy matters around.But I only knew him to disagree with Addington once, on an issue Icannot discuss, and on that issue the president overruled Gonzales andsided with the Addington position.

Logically, Goldsmith suggests that Addington literally always prevailed in these discussions. In the nine months or so Goldsmith attended these meetings, Gonzales only advised a position Addington didn’t support once. And Addington still won that battle.

This suggests Addington–or more likely Cheney–was able to present his view to Bush directly. Which suggests that, in this case, at least, Gonzales’ purported role as a filter on these legal decisions was illusory.

And boy would I like to know what the subject of disagreement was. Gonzales is a sniveling thug. If he disagreed with Addington on something, it’s got to be something pretty damn bad.


Or Maybe O’Hanlon Is the New Judy Miller

Because for the life of me, I can’t understand how taking an "overly rigorous approach to the numbers" makes one "sloppy."

Yet according to Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policystudies at the Brookings Institution who has closely followedstatistics on Iraq for years, the average number of daily attacks onIraqi civilians and US/allied forces has declined from 160 in August2006 to 120 in August 2007.

The GAO’s data may not reflect the downwardtrend experienced last month, says Mr. O’Hanlon. During his recent tourthrough Iraq, he adds, every local briefing he received from the USmilitary said that attacks in that particular sector were down.

In addition, for the GAO to decline to judge whether attacks are sectarian or not is to take an overly rigorous approach to the numbers, says the Brookings expert.      

"I just think they were flat-out sloppy," he says of GAO.

Doesn’t taking a rigorous approach with numbers make you meticulous, as opposed to sloppy? (HT TP)


The ACLU Begins to Win Back Our Country

If you haven’t given to the ACLU in a while, here’s the donate button. The ACLU (with some help) has scored some important wins this week, starting with today’s decision that National Security Letters are unconstitutional.

The ACLU said it was improper to issue so-called national securityletters, or NSLs — investigative tools used by the FBI to compelbusinesses to turn over customer information — without a judge’s orderor grand jury subpoena. Examples of such businesses include Internetservice providers, telephone companies and public libraries.

Yusill Scribner, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office, said prosecutors had no immediate comment.

JameelJaffer, who argued the case for the ACLU, said the revised law hadwrongly given the FBI sweeping authority to control speech because theagency was allowed to decide on its own — without court review –whether a company receiving an NSL had to remain silent or whether itcould reveal to its customers that it was turning over records.

Here’s the decision for your reading pleasure.

And just the other day, a different judge ruled that DOJ had to provide specifics about the documents it was refusing to turn over in FISA. Maybe the ACLU will pull of a hat trick and get the FISC rulings from earlier this year.

This separation of powers thing might pull us through yet, not thanks to Congress.

Update: cboldt’s right. The Hepting case would be more likely to be the third part of the hat trick.


General Petraeus Is the New Judy Miller

General Petraeus, lying to Congress is a crime.

Let’s just repeat that fact over and over. Because that’s what Petraeus is planning on doing on Monday, as Karen DeYoung (in an article buried on page A16) explains clearly. Go read the whole article, closely, for a description of the many methods of the Administration’s hocus pocus. But I’d like to focus on one particular tactic.

Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bushadministration’s claim that its war strategy is working. Incongressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks.

[snip]

When Petraeus told an Australian newspaper last week that sectarianattacks had decreased 75 percent "since last year," the statistic wasquickly e-mailed to U.S. journalists in a White House fact sheet. Asked for detail, MNF-I said that "last year" referred to December 2006, when attacks spiked to more than 1,600.

By March, however — before U.S. troop strength was increased underBush’s strategy — the number had dropped to 600, only slightly lessthan in the same month last year. That is about where it has remainedin 2007, with what MNF-I said was a slight increase in April and May"but trending back down in June-July."

Petraeus’s spokesman, Col. Steven A. Boylan, said he was certain thatPetraeus had made a comparison with December in the interview with theAustralian paper, which did not publish a direct Petraeus quote. Noqualifier appeared in the White House fact sheet.

The approach is reminiscent of something BushCo did to get us into this failing war. They had Judy Miller interview Adnan al-Haideri, who had allegedly already failed a lie detector test. The, the White House cited Miller’s article when they cited Haideri’s claims.

In 2001, an Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, said he had visited twenty secret facilities for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Mr. Saeed, a civil engineer, supported his claims with stacks of Iraqi government contracts, complete with technical specifications. Mr. Saeed said Iraq used companies to purchase equipment with the blessing of the United Nations – and then secretly used the equipment for their weapons programs.1

1 “Secret Sites: Iraqi tells of Renovations at Sites for Chemical and Nuclear Arms,” The New York Times, December 20, 2001

Similarly, here, they’ve put the 75% reduction in violence in Petraeus’ mouth (itself a big gimmick of numbers). And then they’ve cited it, rather than their own numbers, so they can pretend they don’t know how deceptive the numbers are.

But here’s the thing. Judy Miller, as far as we know, was never on the government payroll. She never gave testimony under oath that her stories were accurate. General Petraeus, fulfilling a requirement laid out by Congress, is going to go before Congress and present his bogus numbers as the truth.

As I said, lying to Congress is a crime.

[Oh, and I almost forgot to mention the fact that General Petraeus is the guy who helped Judy Miller override a military officer’s order. So it’s perhaps just a neat irony that he has now turned into Judy Miller.]


Yet Another Whine about a Report Card

No, seriously. The GAO’s report on DHS is really important evidence that Bush has done very little to make this country more safe. But I’m most struck by the fact that the DHS people quoted are making exactly the same complaint the military did last week, when GAO reported that Iraq has met few of its benchmarks (for the record, DHS seems to be doing somewhat better than Iraq, making at least moderate progress in 6 of 14 benchmarks, whereas Iraq has made at least moderate progress in 7 of 18.

Then again, Iraq has a civil war raging

Both agencies, however, are complaining that the GAO is being unfair because it dares to give failing grades, because it refused the change failing grades, and because it used outdated reports largely because the agency in question wouldn’t give GAO the current ones. Here’s the DHS hack:

DHS Undersecretary for Management Paul A. Schneider said that the GAOshould have graded the department higher on 42 of 171 directives. TheGAO relied on a flawed methodology that "fails to accurately reflectthe Department’s progress in many specific program areas," he said in aformal 42-page response.

Schneider also said investigators relied on outdated reports, appliedvague, shifting and inconsistent grading standards, and set up anunfair, "pass-fail" approach to assessing a spectrum of progress thatshould be expected to take many years.

"The GAO Report treats all of the performance expectations as if theywere of equal significance," Schneider said. "In contrast, theDepartment uses a risk-based approach to consider its overallpriorities," adding that the DHS has met 37 of 50 objectives insecuring transportation modes, which were targeted in the 2001 attacks.

And here’s the Administration on its Iraq benchmarks.


The Purpose of Homeland Security

Silly GAO! Silly bloggers! The purpose of the Department of Homeland Security is not to gather together all the resources of homeland security in one coordinated whole. The purpose of DHS is not to improve off of our performance on 9/11. And so you really shouldn’t worry too much about any silly little GAO report.

The GAO states that after the largest government merger in more thanhalf a century, the DHS met fewer than half of its performanceobjectives, or 78 of 171 directives identified by President Bush, Congress and the department’s own strategic plans. The department strongly disputed the report.

In one of its harshest conclusions, the 320-page document states thatthe DHS has made the least progress toward some of the fundamentalgoals identified after the 2001 attacks and again after HurricaneKatrina in August 2005: improving emergency preparedness; capitalizingon the nation’s wealth and scientific prowess through "Manhattan project"-style research initiatives; and eliminating bureaucratic and technical barriers to information-sharing.

Rather, the purpose of DHS is to gather together a bunch of contracting money under one partisan hack to create another government funding outlet for crony capitalists. Which is why Senator Lieberman’s stance on the report is a truly heroic attempt to make more money available for the crony capitalists.

Yesterday, Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) said that although the DHS "has made important progress," it requires more focused attention and money.

And the purpose of DHS is to eliminate the collective bargaining rights of thousands of government employees so we make sure those on the front line remain poor and over-worked.

Silly people, don’t you see that you’re grading all the wrong benchmarks?

Copyright © 2024 emptywheel. All rights reserved.
Originally Posted @ https://www.emptywheel.net/author/emptywheel/page/1157/