k wrote:
I did, but I couldn't help commenting on this. It's people like this that are going to tear the country apart when the next terrorist attack happens.
I agree. Some of these perspectives are deeply authoritarian. There are a lot of people on the right who simply do not care about right/wrong or the rule of law or constitutional rights based on both a stupid misconception that they holding the reins and an ignorant, perhaps actually evil, beleif that the innocent people who'll be swept up in their security measures aren't like them and they have no reason to protect them. The idea of checks and balances is a joke to these people at best, at worst they think it undermines the "consequences" that they get to extract from winning an election. They have a different conception of what America is than I do. They don't see it as a system, a set of ideas about how to run a society. They see it as a place and a group of people and a pile of cash. They don't really care how its governed as long as their direct personal interests are satisfied. To them, the slightest risk is worth sacrificing the greatest ideal. I don't deny that it probably will, mainly because Bush's DHS has fucked up priorities. But I'm equally sure it'll happen after a Dem is elected in the next election, because it'll do more damage then.
I'm not sure Bush will be "to blame." Its inevitable that these things happen because they are impossible to absolutely prevent no matter how competent you are. Its also inevitable that civil liberties will be torn down at the first opportunity, and inevitable that new found police powers will be used far outside the scope of anti-terrorism. This is because they still aren't really serious about this. They are still playing games. Thus far, however, the federal government has successfully prevented another attack on our soil, as they prevented many attacks prior to 9/11. The testimony itself seems pretty damning of the white house and the president in particular and shows a side of Ashcroft i didn't know was there honestly. Not that i'm his biggest fan, but I appreciate that he had enough scruples to not be bullied into something by WH goons and the integrity to point at his acting AG and tell them to talk to the guy who's making the decisions now. Fairly surprising all in all.
I'm not sure I agree. It seems, perhaps, a bit more human than the perspective we usually get from reading externally facing statements. Organizations like the WhiteHouse are not monolithic. They have internal disagreements about decisions. While Ashcroft did the right thing here, it is interesting that he signed off on this program for years before his lawyers got around to reviewing it! Would you sign off on the legaltiy of an executive program without actually analyzing it's legality? Its not clear that Gonzales knew how creepy he was by showing up at the hospital with that paperwork. He may not have truely grasped Ashcroft's condition and they may have felt uncomfortable having such a policy reversal presented by an acting AG. Furthermore, I think the President comes off smelling like roses, in offering that Comey should do what he felt was right. What is most interesting to me is the statement at the very end that the legal staffer was turned up for a promotion because he chose to take this stand... Retribution, but from whom? Its not clear! What is clear is that prior to this event the NSA surveillance program had a different, and likely more invasive, character than the one with which we are familiar. RE: The Volokh Conspiracy - Full Transcript of Comey Testimony on NSA Surveillance Program: | 
