Can right-wingers read? Pt. 2

The recently released inspectors general report on Bush's warrantless surveillance programs had almost nothing positive to say about them or John Yoo, who provided specious legal justifications for those programs on demand. Today Yoo lashes back at the inspectors in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. His matrix of illogic is so dense that the piece appears to be intended to make your eyes bleed. In the interest of public welfare, I'll supply a summary:

Shorter John Yoo: I don't understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. And neither do you.

There are so many deplorable gaps and misstatements (as with his many Bush-ear OLC opinions) that the question naturally arises: Can John Yoo read?

Yoo doesn't understand the clear meaning of the FISA law or how it was updated since 1978.

Yoo isn't aware that the FISA law came into existence in 1978, long after Franklin Roosevelt's death.

Yoo makes a constitutional argument without displaying any apparent awareness of the text of the Constitution.

Yoo doesn't understand what was at issue in Youngstown v. Sawyer, with its landmark ruling by the Supreme Court on the balance between Congressional and Presidential power.

Yoo quotes from but evidently hasn't read the Federalist Papers.

Yoo hasn't even read what he himself wrote about the Patriot Act in 2003.

Traditionally it has been John Yoo's writings that have evoked horror and disgust. But the deeper problem appears to be Yoo's reading ability.

The weaknesses of the FISA inspectors general reports

In my recent post highlighting aspects of the newly declassified version of the report about Bush's warrantless surveillance, I took it for granted that the inspectors general produced a thoroughly inadequate overview of the programs. Perhaps I shouldn't have left that unsaid.

One year ago almost to the day I predicted that any such FISA investigations by the intelligence agency inspectors general would be hobbled and blinkered, and would result in reports that have little merit. That commentary is still worth reading. One thing to add to it, now that we've seen the first such IG report: Two of the five inspectors involved (for CIA and DoD) are in fact "Acting" inspectors general – which makes their independence and authority all the shakier.

No surprise then that practically everything that matters is treated poorly or not at all in the unclassified version of the IG report.

It tells us nothing about which topics the inspectors general wished to but were unable to investigate adequately.

It tells us virtually nothing about the most controversial "Other Intelligence Activities" (which even Bush's own DoJ lawyers rebelled against in 2004). It tells us nothing about whether any or all of these programs were illegal. Nothing about why DoJ officials concluded that many of the programs were illegal. Nothing about what pressure if any was brought on government lawyers to produce opinions testifying to the programs legality. Almost nothing about why John Yoo was given carte blanche to whip out such opinions, without any oversight in the OLC.

It tells us very little about who was responsible, and by what steps, in the creation of seemingly illegal surveillance programs.

It tells us nothing about who was being surveilled, or how, or how often, or how many people were affected. Nothing about how many purely domestic communications were intercepted. Nothing about whether legally privileged or business or personal or political or journalistic communications were intercepted. Nothing about increases or decreases or other changes in the programs over time.

It tells us nothing about what the cooperating telecoms knew, or how willingly they cooperated.

It tells us very little about how much new and actionable intelligence these seemingly illegal programs produced. It tells us little about how much 'poisonous fruit' ended up befouling terrorism prosecutions being brought by the FBI.

And it doesn't seem to make any attempt to assess whether the statements made about the programs by Bush administration officials were on the whole accurate.

crossposted at unbossed.com

Five Myths about the White House's Failure to give our Media Professionals the Propaganda they need to give the public the Run Around effectively

I've been writing for years about how the Bush administration has turned governmental web-pages, especially the White House website, into organs of propaganda. But even by the normally bizarre standards of the Bush gang, this page is quite striking. It is part of the White House's attempt to stampede Congressional Democrats into passing an updated FISA bill that gives amnesty to the telecom corporations that assisted Bush in his illegal, warrantless surveillance. Bush has gone so far recently in his campaign to overawe Congress as to threaten to veto any bill that does not contain blanket amnesty, or even to veto a further extension of the (appallingly permissive) temporary FISA bill - the ironically-named Protect America Act.

But this current installment of Bush & Co. propaganda really takes the cake in terms of sheer audacity. It lists Five Myths about the FISA reform debate, each followed by Facts (with Quotes) intended to rebut them. The problems arise chiefly from three things: (A) The Myths are actually true. (B) The Facts are false. and (C) The quoted Authorities are lying administration shills.

For your amusement, I've assembled the Five Myths into one neat package, without the Facts or the Quotes:

1. MYTH: The future security of our country does not depend on whether Congress provides liability protection for companies being sued for billions of dollars only because they are believed to have assisted the Government in defending America after the 9/11 attacks.

2. MYTH: Even if the critical tools provided by the Protect America Act expire, the authorizations already in place to monitor terrorist communications will leave the Intelligence Community with all the tools it needs to continue current surveillance and begin new surveillance on any terrorist threat.

3. MYTH: If any new surveillance needs to begin, the FISA court can approve a request within minutes. In the case of an emergency, surveillance can begin immediately and FISA approval can be obtained later.

4. MYTH: Accepting another temporary extension of the Protect America Act would not endanger our Nation's security.

5. MYTH: The House already passed a carefully crafted bill to modernize FISA, and efforts to bridge the gap between the Senate, White House, and the House and pass this legislation are ongoing.

I'll bet that, even after reading the first four Myths, you were a bit surprised to see the fifth. How in the world, you might wonder, could even this White House manage to deny the plain truth the fifth Myth? Well, you'll have to go explore the WH page to get that answer. This really is a perfect introduction to the WH propaganda machinery that I've been railing about. There's a delicious irony that the White House uses the heading "In Focus" to describe their series of Fun-House-Mirror images of the political debate in Washington.