I'm not sure if that's how the saying goes but the Bush people sure hopes it does.
Sometimes it's really hard keeping track of all this administration's scandals. That's what they hope. I imagine that's why they're trying to change the subject with the president's anticipated speech to the nation on immigration on Monday. If people get back to blaming foreigners for all our problems, that's fire directed away from Washington.
Fortunately for the administration, none of the scandals involve oral sex so impeachment or the appointment of a special prosecutor are unlikely. While impunity is on trial in Africa, it's alive and well in the United States.
I had articles bookmarked that I was going to write about but I realized there was so many, I didn't have time to write a full essay on each. So here's a recap some of the scandals. (Note: I'm sure I'm going to miss some. So I apologize in advance)
I've always said that secrecy is the enemy of democracy. You'll notice a theme here.
NSA SPYING ON YOU
The USA Today, a paper that doesn't spring forth into most people's mind when talking about journalistic excellence, ran an excellent and controversial story on the National Security Agency (NSA). It turns out the NSA has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth.
The paper added The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime [emphasis mine]. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity.
The program was described as "the largest databas ever assembled in the world."
Earlier, the administration angrily defended the NSA's monitoring of phone calls, monitoring done without a court warrant despite the existence of a secret spy court set up precisely for that reason. Officials assured us that they were only monitoring calls from the US to other countries or vice versa, not internal US calls. Some attacked The New York Times for reporting on the program.
The database was collected without any warrants and with the cooperation of most major phone companies, with the notable exception of Qwest.
Defenders of the program claim that the information collected is only a list of phone numbers, not the actual content of conversations. One might be able to grudgingly accept that if the public were sure that was the extent of the trolling
But how can anyone know for sure since...
INQUIRY INTO WARRANTLESS DOMESTIC SPYING BLOCKED BY ADMINISTRATION
The Associated Press reported an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program has been scrapped because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.
A Justice Department spokesman claims that despite the rejections, the spying program "has been subject to extensive oversight both in the executive branch and in Congress from the time of its inception."
Though given the obstructionism, obfuscation and the administration's traditional hostility to accountability, how extensive could the oversight have possibly been?
BUSH: SPYING NOT WIDESPREAD
On the defensive yet again, Pres. Bush insisted that the spying was not widespread and that it's only used to target terrorists. The government is not "mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans," he claimed. But given recent reports that some of the people being monitored included Quakers, Catholic anti-poverty activists and (shockingly) anti-war activists, how can we believe him?
WHY THE SECRECY?
Further undermining the president's credibility is the secrecy surrounding these programs. Not the way they work, but their very existence. The revelation of these previously secret programs have brought a wave of recriminations against the newspapers that reported on them: The New York Times and The USA Today. The Times won a Pulitizer Prize for the story but Bush apologists said they should've won a 'Pulitizer Prize for Treason'.
I'm sure the administration would agree that the purpose of such programs are ultimately to deter terrorism. Given that, shouldn't the administration have WANTED to promote the existence of these programs? Shouldn't the administration have WANTED to send a loud and clear message to potential terrorists, "We're watching you. We're listening to you. We know who you're calling."
Shouldn't the number one goal to hinder plots even being conceived in the first place? Wouldn't the promotion of the existence of these programs make it exceedingly difficult on potential terrorists by making communication and organization so onerous that they give up?
The fact that the administration has been so secretive about the existence of programs that logic dicatates they should've wanted to publicize makes me wonder why. It makes me wonder what they're trying to hide?
RED CROSS DENIED VISITS TO DETAINEES
Continuing the 'why the secrecy?' trend, the Red Cross (ICRC) has criticized the US government for its refusal to grant the ICRC access to detainees held in secret detention centers.
The Red Cross' criticism is notable because the organization almost never criticizes any government: neutrality is its guiding principle.
"No matter how legitimate the grounds for detention, there exists no right to conceal a person's whereabouts or to deny that he or she is being detained," noted the ICRC's president.
The organization's chief spokesperson declared, "[I]t is absolutely vital for such people to be held in a clear legal framework and that they are granted all basic judicial safeguards," adding that "Obviously this includes those people held in secret places of detention."
And the above doesn't even include generalized corruption in Washington (which is bipartisan but affects Republicans more because they control the place), the anticipated military action against a Middle East country for its alleged weapons program and loudmouthed leader (if this sounds familiar, it should) or the biggest scandal of all: the Iraq disaster.
No wonder Scott McClellan resigned.
Note: The New York Review of Books ran a great article by Brian Urquhart describing the damage done by the present disastrous foreign policy of the US on respect for international law. The Globalist ran a good piece on how the Bush administration's defense of torture and contempt for the rule of law is undermining the global cause of human rights promotion.
Update: the latest scandal: The Washington Post reports that a former CIA officer accuses the agency of lying to Congress with regard to torture. An editorialin The Post echoes some of my comments on how fishy the administration's hyperdefensiveness seems
No comments:
Post a Comment