I'm having a very hard time pulling together all of the threads of this thing. It's too big, too far-reaching, and there's just too much to read. Here's my attempt to compile the sources I think are essential: - The program: The absence of any solid information is generating all kinds of speculation about what the program actually entails. John at AmericaBlog suggests that the NSA was spying on journalists communicating with sources suspected of al Qaeda connections. This theory is plausible, and would explain why they couldn't have gone to the FISA court, and why they are so desperate to keep the details secret, but I don't see any solid evidence for it. The more popular view now is that it's some sort of datamining operation (see Kevin Drum, Ezra Klein, and Josh Marshall for details); this is supported by details such as the wording of Gonzales' statements and the Rockefeller letter.
- Legality: Kevin Drum gives a capsule summary of the legal status (short version: 4th Amendment violation probably, FISA violation certainly, unlimited executive power justification not so much). Think Progress eviscerates a 'Carter & Clinton did it too' defense advanced by Drudge. Glenn Greenwald eviscerates the administration's own justifications. Kevin Drum addresses the expansive definition of 'wartime' being used to justify unlimited Executive power. And in case anyone is in doubt about the legality, the resignation of a FISA court judge is a pretty solid indicator.
- The I-Word: Where there is a president blithely committing criminal acts, and vowing to continue doing so, there is talk of impeachment. Opinion is divided on whethr it's a good idea to pursue this; Nick Beaudrot says no, and Amanda reluctantly agrees; Shakespeare's Sister, among others, disagrees. Short of impeachment, Conyers' censure resolution is gaining wide support, while Matt Yglesias argues that Congress needs to repeal the use of force resolution. (Matt also nails the bizarre stupidity of the wingnut response with this line: "Meanwhile, the same conservatives who think all this is no big deal seem to regard the EPA as an intolerable sign of creeping totalitarianism."
- The Times: Here's Digby and Shakespeare's Sister on the news that the White House tried to dissuade the Times from publishing, Shakespeare's Sister on the Times' criminal complicity, and Glenn Greenwald on the larger implications of it all. Key quote from Glenn:
But if they don’t -- if the media does not radically and rapidly change the way it operates and how it sees its function as a result of this scandal -- it is not hyperbole to say that many of the most basic and long-standing principles of our republic will be undermined, perhaps irrevocably. The Administration is now alternatively rubbing the media’s face in this scandal and threatening them with criminal investigations and imprisonment if they don’t fall into line. The moment of truth for the media has arrived, and one cannot exactly be confident in the prospect that they will rise to this challenge.
If you have any other sources that are particularly helpful in understanding this thing, please post them in comments.
[That's all, folks]
|