Res Ipsa Loquitur

President Bush issued another signing statement recently; this one for the newly reauthorized Patriot Act.  In it he claims that he is not bound by provisions in the law that require telling Congress how the law's police powers are used (see my earlier posts on signing statements). As Josh Marshall points out, it's a neverending constitutional crisis with this administration.  The signing statement was released after the presses had cooled from the signing ceremony itself, so that hardly anyone noticed. 

I keep wondering what percentage of the population, if they knew the facts, would continue to tolerate living in a country where the legislature passes laws but the President (or whoever) selectively chooses which parts he will "faithfully execute."

Censure the bastard.

Bill Arkin calls for members of the 902nd Military Intelligence Group to step forward with information on these ongoing operations:

I believe your unit is spying on anti-war, anti-military and environmental organizations under the guise of "force protection."

Ever since Pentagon domestic spying was revealed by yours truly in December, the Defense Department has aggressively tried to assure Congress and the American public that it is not another agency breaking the law. [...]

The Pentagon "suspicious activity" database I revealed in December contained entries of anti-war and anti-military demonstrations, certainly suggesting that the military was conducting surveillance.

To understand what kind of surveillance though, one has to abandon the Nixonian model of surveillance for the purpose of harassing government opponents or selecting individuals to spy on because of their political affiliations. [...]

But in this world of Pentagon "force protection," CIFA and 902nd analysts (and their contractor proxies) are mostly engaged in culling through intelligence and law enforcement reports and databases looking for "dots". As part of this work, they surf the web looking for upcoming protests, they follow threads of conversations on newsgroups, join listservs to receive announcements, even join organizations under false pretenses to attend meetings and receive materials.

The objective is to look for patterns or tip-offs that might be the next big one. And if not the next big one, maybe just an anti-war protest at the gate of the local National Guard armory.

The Pentagon's own force protection documents associated with the suspicious activity database reveal that CIFA and 902nd MI Group analysts are looking at whether the same license plates show up at different protests or meetings or whether the same individuals appear at different venues. [,,,]

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." - Daniel Webster

CJR Daily (in re: USA Today), 3/24/2006:

The head of U.S. reconstruction efforts in Iraq has declared that America is done paying the bills to rebuild the country. "The Iraqi government needs to build up its capability to do its own capital budget investment," said Daniel Speckhard, director of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office.

The government has slipped a noose around the $21 billion program that, according to the article, was supposed to "fix or build schools, roads, clinics, ports, bridges, government offices, phone networks, power plants and water systems."

I guess that means we're done, right?  Time to pack up and come home because the job is done.  So why is the Pentagon ramping up construction of permanent bases in Iraq?

Los Angeles Times, same day:

Even as military planners look to withdraw significant numbers of American troops from Iraq in the coming year, the Bush administration continues to request hundreds of millions of dollars for large bases there, raising concerns over whether they are intended as permanent sites for U.S. forces.

Questions on Capitol Hill about the future of the bases have been prompted by the new emergency spending bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives last week with $67.6 billion in funding for the war effort, including the base money.

Although the House approved the measure, lawmakers are demanding that the Pentagon explain its plans for the bases, and they unanimously passed a provision blocking the use of funds for base agreements with the Iraqi government.

"It's the kind of thing that incites terrorism," Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said of long-term or permanent U.S. bases in countries such as Iraq.

I can see Bush's signing statement now: "The President shall construe the provisions of the spending bill requiring information disclosure in a manner consistent with his constitutional authority to rule the globe"

The White House would have us believe that the situation in Iraq is quite rosy, and that they're still throwing those flowers at the US military, but the press just isn't reporting the "good news." Realizing the negative impact that bad news out of Iraq will have on Republican officeholders, the Bush administration is now accusing journalists in Iraq of what amounts to treason. They say that by reporting on all the violence, the press is "helping the terrorists." Such an accusation would be funny coming from my next-door neighbor, but these people run the federal government!

Watch this video for a powerful rebuttal by Lara Logan:

"As long as you are a prisoner of the terrible security situation here then that's going to be reflected in your coverage [...]

Reconstruction funds have been diverted to cover security.  Soldiers' lives are occupied most of the time with security issues.  Iraqi civilian lives are often dominated by security issues.  So how is it that security issues should not then dominate the media coverage coming out of here? [...]

Does anybody understand that we used to drive to Ramadi, to Fallujah, to Najaf.  We could drive all over this country without having to fly in military helicopters.  That's the only way we can move around here, so when  the military can accomodate us, if  the miliitary can accomodate us, then we can go out and see. I mean, we just can't win. I think it's an outrage to point the finger at journalists and say this is our fault, I really do. And I think it shows an abject lack of respect for any journalist that's prepared to come to Iraq and risk their life. And that's not just me, that's the crews, that's all the people that make up our teams here.