Discourse.net

Look, We Worry About This Stuff

A Dallas-Fort Worth newspaper reports that someone — the Secret Service? — ordered that security be dropped at an Obama rally yesterday. In Dallas. (Please, stop the flashbacks….)

Star-Telegram.com: | 02/21/2008 | Police concerned about order to stop screening: Security details at Barack Obama’s rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department’s homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order — apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service — was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena’s vacant seats before Obama came on.

(spotted via The Agonist)

If this came from the campaign — and I hope that’s where this originated — there’s no story here except how blasé they are about security. You have to wonder if they are thinking straight. Even if it means empty seats for the cameras.

If it came from the Secret Service itself, we need to know a lot more, and fast.

The Secret Service has in the past enjoyed an excellent and largely non-partisan reputation, but this has been greatly tarnished by its role in restricting lawful and peaceful anti-Bush protesters, helping the White House hide records relating to Jack Abramoff’s White House visits, and arresting a citizen who had the temerity to tell Dick Cheney that, “I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible” — and then fabricating a criminal charge, orchestrating a cover-up.

And then there’s a case, which has been running for eight years (!), in which almost 60 African American secret service agents allege that they were subjected to racial epithets at work and that white agents with lower scores on promotional exams got better assignments or promotions above them. Although the case is still in procedurally early stages, the judge has repeatedly sanctioned the Secret Service for failing to comply with court orders to produce evidence. Not only has the Secret Service’s general stonewalling tactics got it into trouble, but in recent testimony the Inspector in charge of producing evidence to the court, one Carrie Hunnicutt, admitted destroying documents two days before testifying despite a court order to preserve all evidence.

We really really don’t need any doubt about the Secret Service’s willingness to protect Barack Obama.

Much ado about nothing?

[Update: See Secret Service Says Low Security is All Part of the Plan]

InfraGard: Below the Radar

Best-quality tin-foil I’ve seen in weeks: it’s a substantially (but not utterly) unsourced report originating from The Progressive, which is more respectable than you often get for stuff of this kind. And, unlike most stuff of this kind, I can’t automatically debunk it, although I can certainly construct scenarios in which relatively innocent comments might be misunderstood (“Will you get in trouble for stopping people storming your power plant? No”).

But it can’t really be the case that the FBI and Homeland Security are going around recruiting businesses to be capos if we ever need martial law, can it?

So, readers, reassuring pointers would be most welcome.

My That's a Big Sabre You Are Rattling There

Over at Hullabaloo, tristero gies credence to the idea that the nuclear missiles “accidentally” flown via B-52 from Minot, North Dakota to Barksdale, Louisiana, in violation of policy that we don’t have planes with nukes flying around the US, were actually flown there intentionally because, he says, “Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. “

His theory — they want to drop the big one on Iran.

I do think that’s a bit tinfoily. But it would not be hard to persuade me that this “accident” and the “unauthorized leak” were some sort of psychops procedure to make the Iranians think we plan to bomb them.

In some ways I think I’d rather believe that than the official, and most likely, story—that a pilot could fly off with at least five nukes by mistake. And no one would notice for three hours.

Patrick Tillman Was Murdered?

Firedoglake — BREAKING: A Whole New Level of Horror describes evidence that might lead one to believe Patrick Tillman was murdered.

Just writing that makes me feel like some Vint Vince Foster conspiracy nut.

But it comes from the AP:

Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman’s forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player’s death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

“The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

Are we to believe the White House covered up the fragging of a soldier because he was a well-known sports star? I suppose after war crimes, nothing is unimaginable any more.

(Except cannibalism, right? We don’t eat people, right?)

'Caging' and Other Rovian Wonders

Tinfoil or something more nutritious?

The Future of America Has Been Stolen - 10 Zen Monkeys (a webzine)

Investigative reporter Greg Palast says 4.5 million votes will be shoplifted in 2008, thanks largely to the “Rove-bots” that have been placed in the Justice Department following the U.S. Attorney firings. Being the guy who uncovered the voter “purge lists” of 2000 that disenfranchised black voters, he’s worth listening to, even if the mainstream press chooses not to.

This time around, he claims to have the 500 emails that the House subpoenaed and Karl Rove claims were deleted forever. They prove definitively, says Palast, that the Justice Department is infested with operatives taking orders from Rove to steal upcoming elections for Republicans and permanently alter the Department.

…

[Palast says:] Caging works like this. Hundreds of thousands of Black and Hispanic voters were sent letters — do not forward. Letters returned as undeliverable (”caged”) were used as evidence the voter didn’t live at their registered address. The GOP goons challenged these voters’ right to cast ballots — and their votes were lost.

But whose letters were caged? Here’s where the game turns to deep evil. They targeted Black students on vacation, homeless men — and you’ll love this — Black soldiers sent overseas. They weren’t living at their home voting address because they were shivering under a Humvee in Falluja.

In other parts of the interview, they guy sounds, quite frankly, like he’s bats. But the stuff about past voter suppression did sound plausible; which at least raises the possibility that some of the other stuff might be right too.

Group Claims 2006 Election Was Hacked

I await the debunking — this is too cute to be easy to believe:

Clear Evidence 2006 Congressional Elections Hacked: A major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in U.S. House and Senate races across the country is indicated by an analysis of national exit polling data, by the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), a national election integrity organization.

These findings have led EDA to issue an urgent call for further investigation into the 2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic election equipment.

“We see evidence of pervasive fraud, but apparently calibrated to political conditions existing before recent developments shifted the political landscape,” said attorney Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance, “so ‘the fix’ turned out not to be sufficient for the actual circumstances.” Explained Simon, “When you set out to rig an election, you want to do just enough to win. The greater the shift from expectations, (from exit polling, pre-election polling, demographics) the greater the risk of exposure—of provoking investigation. What was plenty to win on October 1 fell short on November 7.

Also, I’ve never heard of the Election Defense Alliance, nor of its leaders (although some of the bios are intriguing). Perhaps someone could evaluate their report?

Crazy Times (Martial Law Edition)

I’ve mentioned before that we live in crazy times, that so many things which seemed politically impossible now seem at least possible, and that those of us who take freedom seriously have to worry about stuff we’d have laughed off a decade ago.

I’m reminded of this by two things which at first may seem unrelated: an incident involving an attempt to incite the arrest of Michael Schiavo and an amendment to the (former) Insurrections Act, which has now morphed into an act regarding “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order,” an amendment which has sparked a remarkable amount of blog angst about possible martial law.

First, there’s this I-wish-it-were-incredible story from Michael Schiavo, the husband of Terry Schiavo, who has been dedicating himself to going around the country supporting opponents of the legislators who tried to federalize his wife’s hospitalization.

My unreal night in Colorado: Back in mid-July I travelled to Colorado and delivered a letter to Congresswoman Musgrave’s office. asking her why she felt compelled to interfere in my family’s personal affairs - questioning, in fact trying to refute the medical facts of my wife’s case on the floor of Congress.

Not surprisingly, Marilyn Musgrave never responded to my letter.

So on Tuesday I joined about 1,000 citizens and members of the local and regional media in the Windsor High School Auditorium to hear the debate and try to get an answer to my question from Congresswoman Musgrave.

About twenty minutes before the debate started and after speaking to several reporters about how Musgrave had voted to transform her values into our laws, I took a seat in the front row. As it turned out, I was seated next to the timekeeper who held up yellow and red cards to signal time to the candidates.

But just minutes after taking my seat, I noticed a flurry of activity around my seat including about four uniformed police officers who were - I would learn later - called in by Musgrave staffers and asked to remove me from the building.

At this point, I had made no speeches, I had no signs, had made no attempt to disrupt or cause any commotion. I only came into the auditorium, spoke to a dozen or so reporters and took a seat.

To their credit, the police refused the Musgrave campaign’s appeal to have me removed.

There’s more to come, but I still can’t get over even that part. A sitting member of Congress asked the police to remove me - a taxpaying citizen - from a public debate. Obviously, I misunderstand the concept of a political debate. I thought a debate was a place to share ideas, answer questions, defend your record and tell citizens what you’ve done and what you will do. Marilyn Musgrave believes, I have to gather, that debates are places to have the police remove people who don’t agree with you.

(And why shouldn’t Congresswoman Musgrave think that you can have your critics arrested? After all, it works for George Bush and Dick Cheney.)

Then there’s this second thing, an amendment to 10 USC § 333, that significantly expands the circumstances in which the President can deploy the full armed forces — and federalize the state National Guard even over a local governor’s objections. The old version of the Insurrection Act, along with the Posse Comitatus Act, sought to narrow Presidential power and localize the decision to use force. [UPDATE: For a tour de force introduction to the legal regime as it existed prior to this most recent amendment, see Steve Vladeck’s amazing student note, Emergency Power and the Militia Acts, 114 YALE L.J. 149 (2004).]

Some of the circumstances the law addresses are pretty clear — “a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident,” — even if not necessarily keeping with our traditions of civilian law enforcement and federalism.

But some are pretty vague: The President can call out the full military might of the US (and remove the governor’s control of local forces), whenever he thinks that “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy” in a state has resulted in situation that,

(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

But here’s the thing: the section quoted above, the vaguest and broadest part of this statute, the very part that has some folks worrying out loud about martial law, is pretty much the same as the old language, which allowed the President to call out the troops to,

suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

Laws like this are always troubling because there is no practical way to challenge their application. Unless it were willing to strike down the statute as a standardless delegation — a nearly moribund doctrine — it is very hard to see a court telling the President that, say, the chaos in New Orleans after the flood, or even the limited violence in Florida in 2000 when GOP operatives attacked the ballot counters, didn’t rise to a level that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” The courts are going to label that a political question, or find some other excuse for the courts to duck the matter.

But while this sort of executive discretion is always a problem for democratic rule, as I hope I’ve shown by juxtaposing the old language and the new it’s not a new problem, not at all.

You might wonder why people got all excited about this today, when similar language has been on the books for quite a long time. Some people might just dismiss it as hysteria, a sort of left-wing or libertarian-right-wing paranoia. I think it’s subtler than that.

What’s new is that so many more of us no longer have the gut-level feeling that we can rely on the people in charge not to abuse the system; this doubt has a large number of people starting at shadows. In one sense that doubt is a beautiful thing: it is part of a free people’s antibodies against tyrants. We need to respect that feeling, even while being annoyed about the extra work vigilance imposes on us.

Finding the precisely appropriate dose of concern is a difficult calibration exercise. In that context it is important to understand that the case of Michael Schiavo has two lessons: on the one hand, part of the current ruling cabal mistook our government for a revolutionary junta. On the other hand, the local police had the good sense not to listen.

Emergency federal powers of the type set out in § 333 are scary in part because they threaten to displace the good sense and discretion of a few local cops with the necessarily more order-following tradition of the military officer on the scene. But in the main that’s not a new problem, it’s a very old one — one today that it is exacerbated by the attack on habeas corpus, and the administration’s legal claims that it can jail any of us, any time, for as long as it wants — not to mention the administration’s claim that it has the legal right to kill us.

In good times we just don’t have to worry about that stuff. But these are crazy times, not good ones.

Full statutory text below the fold.

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
(a) USE OF THE ARMED FORCES AUTHORIZED.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 333 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
‘‘§ 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and
Federal law
‘‘(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.—
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the
National Guard in Federal service, to—
‘‘(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United
States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or
other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or
incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the
United States, the President determines that—
‘‘(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent
that the constituted authorities of the State or possession
are incapable of maintaining public order; and
‘‘(ii) such violence results in a condition described in
paragraph (2); or
‘‘(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection,
violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition
described in paragraph (2).
‘‘(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition
that—
‘‘(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that
State or possession, that any part or class of its people is
deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named
in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse
to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that
protection; or
‘‘(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those
laws.
‘‘(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State
shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the
laws secured by the Constitution.
‘‘(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—The President shall notify Congress
of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A)
as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days
thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.’’.
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE.—Section 334 of such title
is amended by inserting ‘‘or those obstructing the enforcement
of the laws’’ after ‘‘insurgents’’.
(3) HEADING AMENDMENT.—The heading of chapter 15 of
such title is amended to read as follows:
‘‘CHAPTER 15—ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO
RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER’’.
(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—(A) The tables of chapters
at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code,
and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each
amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and
inserting the following new item:

(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15
of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections
333 and inserting the following new item:
‘‘333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.’’.
(b) PROVISION OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 152 of such title is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘§ 2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major
public emergencies
‘‘(a) PROVISION AUTHORIZED.—In any situation in which the
President determines to exercise the authority in section
333(a)(1)(A) of this title, the President may direct the Secretary
of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons
affected by the situation.
‘‘(b) COVERED SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT.—The supplies,
services, and equipment provided under this section may
include food, water, utilities, bedding, transportation, tentage,
search and rescue, medical care, minor repairs, the removal of
debris, and other assistance necessary for the immediate preservation
of life and property.
‘‘ (c) LIMITATIONS.—(1) Supplies, services, and equipment may
be provided under this section—
‘‘(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities
of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide
such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be;
and
‘‘(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or
agencies of the United States charged with the provision of
such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide
such supplies, services, and equipment.
‘‘(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equipment
under this section only to the extent that the Secretary
determines that doing so will not interfere with military preparedness
or ongoing military operations or functions.
‘‘(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES.—The provision
of supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not
be subject to the provisions of section 403© of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)).’’.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
‘‘2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies’’.
(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 12304(c)(1) of such title
is amended by striking ‘‘No unit’’ and all that follows through
‘‘subsection (b),’’ and inserting ‘‘Except to perform any of the functions
authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or
by subsection (b), no unit or member of a reserve component may
be ordered to active duty under this section’’.

---

Here is the old version of the statute, part of the Insurrections Act,

§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

Crazy Times

When a government uses psychiatrists to lock up dissidents you really have turned a corner towards Stalinism. But this is not a charge one would wish to make lightly. And, of course, people with psychiatric problems would say that there's a big conspiracy against them, wouldn't they?

So here's another item I would have dismissed as clearly ridiculous five years ago. Now, well, one's first reaction is doubt: could it be true? Have we sunk so low? For starters, I remember this story -- Soldier Who Reported Abuse Was Sent to Psychiatrist, so as far as I'm concerned, this gang's track record in the area of abusive psychiatry is not so good. And we won't even talk about the mis-use of psychologists and/or psychiatrists at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and in other military prisons.

So what to make of this story about Susan Lindauer?

The Arctic Beacon: ... Lindauer, 42, the cousin of former White House Chief of Staff, Andy Card, was released in September from a New York correctional facility after spending a year in jail ... after Federal Judge D.J. Mukasey of the U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, ruled against the government's motion to keep Lindauer locked away under forced medication, saying "there is simply not enough here to warrant a finding by clear and convincing evidence that Lindauer is substantially likely to be rendered competent by forced medication and substantially unlikely to suffer effects that will impinge upon a fair trial.

The 'Arctic Beacon' -- whatever that is -- reports that Ms. Lindauer made the following statement:

I was accused of acting as an Iraqi Agent for the purposes of lobbying against the War, (not spying). I am a Democrat. My cousin, Andy Card, is the former Chief of Staff to President Bush. A year ago, the Court ordered me to surrender to Carswell Prison, which sits on a military base outside of Fort Worth, Texas-- one of the most god-awful places I've ever imagined in my life. Truly sadistic staff. Very ugly people.

There I was declared incompetent to stand trial. Please note that I was denied the most basic right to a Competency Hearing, where I could have called long-time friends and associates to testify in my defense.

Since they had no behavioral evidence, or witness testimony from friends and family to support their request for forcible drugging, they told the court that I am "secretly delusional." Nobody knows about it, they said-- not even the court-ordered psychologist in Maryland, whom I was required to see for 18 months after my arrest. (He had no idea).

They pointed to fiction writing, and old religious writings that I had used in my approach to Libya, when we were trying to start negotiations for the Lockerbie Trial in the mid-1990s. Much of that was more than 10 years old. Moreover, they had plucked paragraphs, and spliced my writing all to hell, so that it does not even read like the originals.

That's forensic psychiatry for you, folks! it's a scary business, apparently lacking much in the way of integrity. As "Dr." Vas told me at Carswell. "I'm going to tell the Judge you made it all up. And who do you think he's going to believe-- you or me? I am a doctor."

Yes, truly frightening.

Thankfully, the Judge ruled against the Prosecution last week. I was released after serving 11 months in prison. But who can say if it's really over? For all I know, the Prosecutor is planning a new line of attack right now.

But guess what? It turns out that the claim Ms. Lindauer has delusions seems to have some real foundations, at least if From 'Spy' to Psychotic in the Seattle Weekly can be believed. Ms. Lindauer's belief that the government was spying on turned out to have a basis in reality -- the FBI was after her. But Ms. Lindauer's arrest wasn't for dissidence so much as for taking some money from the Iraqi government and playing along with an agent posing as a foreign spy -- although, given her general irrelevance, it's unclear if she actually did or even could have done the sort of things she's charged with doing or attempting, nor is it certain what she thought she was doing.

So while the Judge's decision releasing Ms. Lindauer is real, and it's always possible the reporter from the Seattle paper got snookered, I'd have to say that much in Ms. Lindauer's statement has the look of tinfoil. Which is a relief.

But I sure do miss the days when I could say that sort of thing confidently without checking first.

[timestamp corrected]

ESPN Fakes GOP Crowd Cheers, Dem Crowd Boos ?!?

Please, someone, say it ain't so!

Daily Kos: ESPN FAKED STADIUM CHEERS FOR BUSH SR.: For several years, ESPN has been manufacturing fake cheers and fake boos for politicians. It's a very simple rule. If you are a Democrat not named Joe Lieberman, ESPN will play a tape of boos previously recorded and insert them into the audio after the Democrat is announced. If you are a Republican and ESPN is expecting boos, ESPN will play a pre-recorded tape of cheers unrelated to the Republican.

I'd really, really like this to be tin-foil. There's something pathetic and offensive about the idea that the propagandists are taking over the national pastime. And yet, in our debased discourse, one no longer knows how low we can go. Circuses indeed!

Help Me Parse This

The Iguana is sometimes ahead of the curve, but is also willing to embrace tin foil at times, so I've parked this in that category for the time being. But I have to confess that I don't even quite follow what it wants to mean.

Cosmic Iguana - Voice of the Evil Doers: NO ARABS ON FLIGHT 77. Maybe someone can explain it?

Keylogger Paranoia

Almost had some great tinfoil today, via Dave Farber's list, which reports that an anonymous (Russian?) website claims there's a keylogger built into Dell laptops. Comes complete with pictures of the chip and FOIA refusal to comment from DHS!

Alas, follow-ups report that both engadget and snopes.com say this is utterly false, as do people who've actually taken Dells apart.

So just worry about this instead.

The Guns of June

In a week where we learn of a systematic effort to spy on journalists (who's next, Howard Dean?) via Patriot Act-authorized National Security Letters which bypass all judicial process, it does not pay to dismiss any potential act of military madness too quickly as tinfoil.

So, although the source is not the most reliable, I bring you US military, intelligence officials raise concern about possible preparations for Iran strike, RAW STORY's allegation that the US is moving two air craft carriers into range in order to be able to bomb Iran. (For an alternate view that the bombing could be carried out from land bases, see US spells out plan to bomb Iran in the UK Herald.)

Capitol Hill Blue Claims It Received a National Security Letter

Capitol Hill Blue is not a particularly reliable source, rating only a little better than the Washington Times when it comes to, say, reporting on the White House. But you would think they might possibly be credible when reporting on things they have personally witnessed.

Today CHB is alleging that they received a national security letter

In recent weeks, the FBI has issued hundreds of "National Security Letters," directing employers, banks, credit card companies, libraries and other entities to turn over records on reporters. Under the USA Patriot Act, those who must turn over the records are also prohibited from revealing they have done so to the subject of the federal probes.

"The significance of this cannot be overstated," says prominent New York litigator Glenn Greenwald. "In essence, while the President sits in the White House undisturbed after proudly announcing that he has been breaking the law and will continue to do so, his slavish political appointees at the Justice Department are using the mammoth law enforcement powers of the federal government to find and criminally prosecute those who brought this illegal conduct to light.

"This flamboyant use of the forces of criminal prosecution to threaten whistle-blowers and intimidate journalists are nothing more than the naked tactics of street thugs and authoritarian juntas."

Just how widespread, and uncontrolled, this latest government assault has become hit close to home last week when one of the FBI's National Security Letters arrived at the company that hosts the servers for this web site, Capitol Hill Blue.

The letter demanded traffic data, payment records and other information about the web site along with information on me, the publisher.

Now that's a problem. I own the company that hosts Capitol Hill Blue. So, in effect, the feds want me to turn over information on myself and not tell myself that I'm doing it. You'd think they'd know better.

I turned the letter over to my lawyer and told him to send the following message to the feds:

Fuck you. Strong letter to follow.

If this is true, how serious it is depends on what the server was doing. If it's a machine dedicated solely to serving a somewhat scurrilous publication that is a thorn in the side of the White House, I think this is a big deal. If on the other hand the server was operated as an ordinary business and has lots of clients and there's reason to believe one of the others is the target, well there's a good chance that this is just what has come to be business as usual in US2006. (And then of course there's always the possibility they're plain making it up.)

I hope someone gets to the bottom of this.

Quailgate

The Washington Note posts a transcript of the Cheney interview. Others will doubtless post on the serious stuff: the sycophantically and powder-puff nature of the questions, the failure to engage the big issues of the day like torture, the odd and unconvincing explanation for the delay in going public, the failure to engage the issue of who told what to whom when, and especially the failure to ask whether Cheney ever spoke to Bush about the shooting. (Not the mention the question of whether Texas follows the year-and-a-day rule.)

Instead, I'm going to focus on a triviality: Here's how Cheney sets the scene,

It's in south Texas, wide-open spaces, a lot of brush cover, fairly shallow. But it's wild quail. It's some of the best quail hunting anyplace in the country.

Wild quail? I thought these were pen-raised birds like in the famous 2003 hunt,

In December of 2003, he went (via Humvee) to a pheasant shooting party in Pennsylvania at the Rolling Rock Club. Gamekeepers there released some 500 pen-raised pheasants from nets, and Cheney's party, which included former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach and U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) as well as several influential Republican fundraisers, shot 417 of them. Cheney himself got at least 70. Apparently that wasn't enough slaughter, because after lunch the group went after pen-raised mallard ducks.

So which was it, wild or domestic?

(Incidentally, a quick hunt suggests that Texas does not mechanically follow the year-and-a-day rule, but I'm not a Texas lawyer.)

Conspiracy Theories Are Made of Stuff Like This

Secrecy News, the cool new blog from the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, has a great tidbit for the tinfoil-deprived:

The Mystery of the Two James Baker Statements: In a 2002 statement presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee, James A. Baker of the Justice Department Office of Intelligence Policy and Review questioned the constitutionality and the necessity of a proposal by Senator Mike DeWine to lower the legal threshold for domestic intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. persons from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion."

But for yet unknown reasons, Mr. Baker's remarkable statement is found in two distinct versions.

"If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a 'reasonable suspicion' standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions," Mr. Baker said in the more expansive version of his statement.

Moreover, "If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose."

Yet even as Mr. Baker was expressing concerns about lowering the probable cause threshold, the government was doing precisely that in the NSA domestic surveillance activity.

Baker's testimony was highlighted last week by blogger Glenn Greenwald and cited in the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Strangely, however, the testimony in which Mr. Baker presented those concerns cannot be found anywhere on the public record except for the Federation of American Scientists web site.

The testimony that is posted on the Senate Intelligence Committee web site does not contain the three paragraphs in which Mr. Baker questions the propriety of going beyond the probable cause standard as proposed by Senator DeWine.

Likewise, only the truncated version of Mr. Baker's testimony was archived in the Nexis database and published by the Government Printing Office in its printed hearing record.

Pretty spooky, eh?

Digby Does Tinfoil

Digby thinks that GW Bush has lost face too often.

The Latest Wacked Bush Theory

I would never post this had it not come from that paragon of right-of-center respectability, UCLA Law Prof. Stephen Bainbridge. But since it does, I cannot resist:

Bush: Commie Dupe? Here at ProfessorBainbridge.com, we dote on conspiracy theories. So we were amused by science fiction writer Charles Stross argument "that George W. Bush is a communist dupe." Or, more precisely, a dupe of a conspiracy of a cabal that has combined "the Shachtmanite version of Trotskyism" and "right-wing crypto-Nieztchian philosopher Leo Strauss." It would seem to explain a lot.

Of course, Prof. Bainbridge also mentions in the comments to that item that "here at ProfessorBainbridge.com we were very taken with Cthulhu's slogan in the 2004 Presidential race: 'Why settle for the lesser of two evils?'" ... so be forewarned....

Aluminum Foil Does Have Its Uses

Bruce Perens blogs a funny/sad incident involving Richard Stallman, WSIS, RFID and, yes, tin foil (well, aluminum foil, actually):

Richard is opposed to RF ID, because of the many privacy violations that are possible. It's a real problem, and one worth lobbying about. At the 2003 WSIS in Geneva, there was objection to the RF ID cards that were used, resulting in a promise that they would not be used in 2005. That promise, it turns out, was not kept. ...

You can't give Richard a visible RF ID strip without expecting him to protest. Richard acquired an entire roll of aluminum foil and wore his foil-shielded pass prominently. He willingly unwrapped it to go through any of the visible check-points, he simply objected to the potential that people might be reading the RF ID without his knowledge and tracking him around the grounds. This, again, is a legitimate gripe, handled with Richard's usual highly-visible, guile-less and absolutely un-subtle style of non-violent protest.

During his keynote speech at our panel today, Richard gave a moment's talk about the RF ID issue, and passed his roll of aluminum foil around the room for others to use. A number of people in the overcrowded-to-the-max standing-room-only meeting room obligingly shielded their own passes. UN Security was in the room, not only to protect us but because of the crowd issue, and was bound to notice. Richard and I delivered our keynotes, followed by shorter talks by the rest of the panel and then open discussion.

... I was busy with the press for two solid hours. So, I didn't see what happened with Richard. But a whole lot of the people in the room did, and stayed with Richard for the entire process.

Apparently, UN Security would not allow Richard to leave the room.

There's lots of other funny/sad stuff in the whole post.

Ironically, this comes close on the heels of an MIT study showing that aluminum foil hats don't actually work to block CIA mind rays but may amplify them.

He Just Drank the Kool-Aid

Note to media: This report in a tabloid is false. Even my brother calls it "utterly scurrilous". And it bears no connection whatsoever to this sartorial incident.

Note to all: Having looked at a video of the speech, I don't think the photo of Bush's mis-buttoned shirt linked to above is a photoshop job. But as regards the Bush-is-drinking-again story, the Enquirer is not to be trusted. Even if it did break the Monica Lewinsky story. Or, maybe, especially since...

Note to lawyers and law students: On the other hand, if you would like a good lawyer's hypothetical, try Dwight Meredith at Wampum on the poor fit of the XXVth Amenment to problems of substance abuse in the White House. Nice exam question for someone.

Black Helicopter Contingency Plans

Seth Edenbaum points us to Granite Shadow, an expose by the Washington Post's William Arkin, inaugurating a very promising new blog, Early Warning. One the one hand, it's obviously good to have the federal government do disaster planning. On the other hand, having an off-the-shelf plan in place for a military takeover is not one of your warm and fuzzy developments.

Early Warning by William M. Arkin - washingtonpost.com: Granite Shadow is yet another new Top Secret and compartmented operation related to the military's extra-legal powers regarding weapons of mass destruction. It allows for emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control.

A spokesman at the Joint Force Headquarters-National Capital Region (JFHQ-NCR) confirmed the existence of Granite Shadow to me yesterday, but all he would say is that Granite Shadow is the unclassified name for a classified plan.

That classified plan, I believe, after extensive research and after making a couple of assumptions, is CONPLAN 0400, formally titled Counter-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Concept Plan (CONPLAN) 0400 is a long-standing contingency plan of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) that serves as the umbrella for military efforts to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It has extensively been updated and revised since 9/11.

Further, Granite Shadow posits domestic military operations, including intelligence collection and surveillance, unique rules of engagement regarding the use of lethal force, the use of experimental non-lethal weapons, and federal and military control of incident locations that are highly controversial and might border on the illegal.

...

My guess is that Power Geyser and CONPLAN 0300 refers to operations in support of a civil agency "lead"(most likely the Attorney General for a WMD attack) while Granite Shadow and CONPLAN 0400 lays out contingencies where the military is in the lead.  I'll wait to be corrected by someone in the know.

Both plans seem to live behind a veil of extraordinary secrecy because military forces operating under them have already been given a series of ''special authorities'' by the President and the secretary of defense. These special authorities include, presumably, military roles in civilian law enforcement and abrogation of State's powers in a declared or perceived emergency.

This sort of contingency plan may have a place, indeed probably has a place, but only in the context of carefully crafted legislation which spells out the circumstances under which the emergency plan can be activated -- and more importantly sets out the ways in which the emergency authority will end. (Was it really Robert Heinlein -- and not someone more like or Machiavelli or de Tocqueville -- who first said "There is nothing so permanent as a temporary emergency"?)

For the executive branch to draft secret plans for a military takeover of government, however laudable the motives and however extreme the circumstances for which they are intended, does not in the end best serve our long-term national interests.

Wayne Madsen is Jammin'

Wayne Madsen has outdone himself with this report on strange jamming of radio frequencies in New Orleans. There's also an update without a direct link, dated Sept. 4, if you go for such things (search the page for "jamming").

PS. Why am I so skeptical? Lack of imaginable motive, primarily.

Lake George

It's bad:

Sadly, No!: Op-ed: The combined strength of the DHS and FEMA, the National Guard, and the Presidency and its powers, not only allowed a disaster to happen as though in slow motion, while warnings shrieked through the press; but even now, days later, they CAN'T EVEN GET IT TOGETHER TO DELIVER SUPPLIES into a major American city. They CAN'T FIGURE OUT how to put boxes on trucks or in planes and drop them off. For days, as the city sinks deeper into chaos. With bodies eaten by rats in the streets. This is our homeland security.

And while I'm afraid the actual causes of the above are systemic, I do like the explanatory economy of this little piece of analysis:

On another blog, I read that Dick Cheney is strangely missing -- on vacation in Wyoming, with no expected date of return. Perhaps he's ill; that would explain why no one in the Executive Branch seems in charge, or even paying attention.

Here's the actual Washington Post quote on what Cheney was doing while New Orleans drowns:

Vice President Cheney, who has spent part of August at his home outside scenic Jackson, Wyo., remains there today [Wednesday, two days ago] -- although his spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, doesn't call it vacation. "He's working from Wyoming today," McBride told me this morning.

And when is he coming back? "He will certainly be coming back. I'm not able to tell you the day right now. I don't have that handy."

Once again, though, facts get in the way of a cute theory: it appears that Cheney did return to DC on Thursday, as my brother reports:

Cheney Watch

Vice President Cheney, who had been spending part of August at his home in Wyoming, returned to Washington yesterday, his spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, tells me.

P.S. My brother also passes along this jem:

Blogger Wonkette yesterday launched a meme that is spreading through the liberal blogosphere: "A tipster informs us that down in New Orleans, they have a name for the flood waters that have invaded the city: Lake George."

I like it.

Scottish Cop: "Lockerbie evidence was faked"

Wow this is a weird allegation: Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked.

There's something about this that sounds highly implausible. The Scotsman is a reputable newspaper, but without the name of the person making the allegation, I'm suspicious. For starters, why would the CIA have an interest in placing the blame on Libya at the risk of letting some other terrorist go undetected? Then again, if you had told me the CIA was discussing whether to try to make Castro's beard fall off, I've have laughed, too. After stuff like that, it becomes very hard to know what's too nutty to believed. Then again, the beard thing was only brainstorming, not actual action.

(Spotted via Cryptome).

August Means Tinfoil!

It’s August, so the tinfoil is out.

Federal Whistle Blower Claims Chicago Grand Jury Indicted Bush And Others For Perjury and Obstruction Of Justice:

Sources close to the Chicago federal grand jury probe into perjury and obstruction charges against President Bush and others said indictments were handed down this week, but a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Illinois refused to comment.

Uh-huh. I grant you that it fits with the grim seriousness with which the special prosecutor has been working, but even so…

Don’t even hope for this: Another presidential indictment would be bad, even one for something that mattered, like outing a CIA agent. (Impeachment, and perhaps indictment, for lying to start a war is different; that at least would be about an offense of suitably major proportions. But while that’s surely a ‘High Crime’ I don’t know if it violates the US Code.) An indictment and the fury it would cause risks distracting from, maybe even aborting what looks like it would otherwise be a substantial Democratic gain in the upcoming national elections. Not to mention that there’s no one in the line of succession who seems likely to be in any way an improvement over the current Grand Vizier, Dick Cheney.

Buldge Redux

Remember all the stuff about whether Bush was wired for the debates?

My brother’s column yesterday, The Second Memo, closes with this little jem:

The folks over at isbushwired.com would like you to take a look at this clip from Bush’s April 28 press conference, when Bush looks down, pauses in the middle of a sentence, mutters, “in a minute,” then resumes his answer.

Just who is he talking to?

Two Sets of Leaks from the NSA

Speaking of the NSA, here are links to two stories about the NSA.

• James Ridgeway, Village Voice, Intelligence Whistleblower Canned
• Wayne Madsen, Online Journal, The unholy trinity of electronic snooping: Bolton, Negroponte and Hayden

There’s stuff in the Wayne Masden article that seems all too plausible. And, as is so often the case, there’s also some seriously tinfoily stuff in Madsen’s report, notably the allegation that,

NSA has recorded tactical communications intelligence—overheard on a speaker system in the NSOC—that demonstrates that United Flight 93 was shot down by U.S. fighter planes over Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, and the Bush administration concocted a phony “patriotic” cover story about the passengers and crew deliberately crashing the plane into the ground.

I am very dubious. I just don’t think they could keep something that big under wraps so long. Consider how quickly the tissue of lies about the ‘friendly fire’ killing of Pat Tilman began to unravel. I suppose you could argue that if it took a year for the whole story to come out on a minor thing like that, a really major cover up would last longer. But surely someone would have talked?

Iraq Billions Secretly Invested in US Stock Market?

Under the very appropriate headline Could This Possibly Be True?, David Farber forwards this story that seems like pure tin-foil. And yet.

Of the $18.4 billion that Congess appropriated 16 months ago for postwar reconstruction in Iraq, only $3.6 billion has been spent to date. There has been much head-scratching over this uncharacteristic failure of the Pentagon to spend money promptly.

A recently unearthed portion of a Defense Department memo sheds some light on the issue, suggesting that more than $14 billion earmarked for reconstruction was actually invested on Wall Street. The memo’s author and date are unknown. This portion of the apparently classified document — marked “page 3” — was mistakenly sent to Mid-America Seed Savers, a nonprofit organization in Lawrence, Kansas whose members had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents related to the Army’s alleged distribution of genetically engineered wheat seed to farmers in Iraq. The memo fragment is reproduced here in full:

[page heading] Reconstruction fund enhancement - p. 3

[…] that among these, the scenario with greatest potential was investment in a medium-risk portfolio of U.S.-based securities. To accomplish this without incurring excessive and unwarranted scrutiny, the Secretary issued a classified order creating the Office of Special Brokerage Services (OSBS), to which management of the reconstruction funds was assigned. The OSBS, quietly through third parties, purchased approximately $5 billion in stock in February, 2004. Another $9.2 billion was invested the following month. As of December 31, 2004, the fund had shown a net growth of approximately -1.7%.

The negative growth observed to date should not be cause for gloom. This is a long-term investment of behalf of the Iraqi people. According to OSBS projections, the fund’s assets will achieve a value of $38.9 billion by a decade from now, assuming vigorous growth in the US economy.

It is important to compare that figure with the almost-certain undesirable outcome of spending the money directly on infrastructure enhancement. The past two years’ experience shows that new public works run a significant risk of damage or even instantaneous 100% depreciation due to hostile and friendly combat activities. And, as the CJCS [Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers] has noted, insurgencies typically last 7 to 12 years. If invested on the ground in Iraq today, the reconstruction funds might well be worth precisely zero to the Iraqi people a decade from now.

Prudent investment, on the other hand, can help Iraq rebuild while becoming an ownership society. The OSBS has assigned portions of the fund’s assets to individual citizens, based on voting rolls from the January election. Although he or she is not yet aware of it, each and every Iraqi voter now owns a Personal Reconstruction Account (PRA) that will continue to grow in value, safely, until violence in Iraq subsides and normal economic activity can resume. At that point, Iraqi citizens will be able to draw on their PRAs as needed, putting that money to work in their economy and stimulating private-sector solutions to the problem of reconstruction.

PRAs will provide Iraqis with what they desire most: freedom of choice. Under this plan, money will go directly into the pockets of the Iraqi people, for whose benefit Congress intended it. Furthermore, the use of voting records to allocate PRAs will ensure that impetus for rebuilding the country will come from those who have demonstrated a commitment to the democratic process — not from Muslim extremists or Baathist dead-enders.

The question of whether to inform American or Iraqi citizens of OSBS activities and plans is a difficult one. Taking into consideration current political realities, it is probably best not [… end of page]

Were the Votes Counted In MD?

I tend to believe that any big scandal will out fairly fast; people talk.[1] So pending some confirmation, I’m filing as ‘tinfoil’ this allegation that there were massive systemic failures across Maryland involving Diebold AccuVote-TS machines last November — problems with “lost votes, multiple machine failures and even unreadable data cartridges”. But if true it would be very troubling indeed.

---

[1.] I used to also believe that big scandals cause pressure for reform, but that belief has been badly dented by the multiple scandals of the current administration which have failed to excite popular interest (or even media interest). It’s enough to make Marcuse start looking good.

Did NYT Spike a Story about GBW's Debate Cheating?

Fairness and Accuracy in Media, not one of my favorite groups but people worth at least listening to, claims that the NYT spiked a story about Bush carrying in mechanical aids into the debates: The Emperor’s New Hump

On Thursday, just three days after that first exposé, the paper was set to run a second, perhaps more explosive piece, exposing how George W. Bush had worn an electronic cueing device in his ear and probably cheated during the presidential debates.

… But on October 28, the article was not in the paper. After learning from the reporters working on the story that their article had been killed the night before by senior editors, Nelson eventually sent his photographic evidence of presidential cheating to Salon magazine, which ran the photos as the magazine’s lead item on October 29.

Cowards. (spotted via Orcinus)

Are There No Terrorists Under the Bed?

Robert Scheer writes in the LA Times, Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?

Is it conceivable that Al Qaeda, as defined by President Bush as the center of a vast and well-organized international terrorist conspiracy, does not exist?

To even raise the question amid all the officially inspired hysteria is heretical, especially in the context of the U.S. media’s supine acceptance of administration claims relating to national security. Yet a brilliant new BBC film produced by one of Britain’s leading documentary filmmakers systematically challenges this and many other accepted articles of faith in the so-called war on terror.

“The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear,” a three-hour historical film by Adam Curtis recently aired by the British Broadcasting Corp., argues coherently that much of what we have been told about the threat of international terrorism “is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians.

Wouldn’t that be something?

You know, these are good questions:

… consider just a few of the many questions the program poses along the way:

• If Osama bin Laden does, in fact, head a vast international terrorist organization with trained operatives in more than 40 countries, as claimed by Bush, why, despite torture of prisoners, has this administration failed to produce hard evidence of it?

• How can it be that in Britain since 9/11, 664 people have been detained on suspicion of terrorism but only 17 have been found guilty, most of them with no connection to Islamist groups and none who were proven members of Al Qaeda?

• Why have we heard so much frightening talk about “dirty bombs” when experts say it is panic rather than radioactivity that would kill people?

• Why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim on “Meet the Press” in 2001 that Al Qaeda controlled massive high-tech cave complexes in Afghanistan, when British and U.S. military forces later found no such thing?

‘Trust but verify’ — and there hasn’t been much public verification, has there?

Bush Health Story Won't Quite Die

To believe this story, PHOTOS Show George W. Bush Seriously Ill Physically : Houston Indymedia, you’d have to believe that Bush’s military doctor was lying when he said that Bush “remains in superb physical condition.” I tend to find that unlikely, although there are of course the FDR and JFK precedents.

Wayne Madsen Is At It Again ('Vote Switching" Software???)

I still think Wayne Madsen is not a nut, and that’s why I have to give some credence to this well researched, and highly suggestive albeit not dispositive piece of reporting: Texas to Florida: White House-linked clandestine operation paid for “vote switching” software:

An exhaustive investigation has turned up a link between current Florida Republican Representative Tom Feeney, a customized Windows-based program to suppress Democratic votes on touch screen voting machines, a Florida computer services company with whom Feeney worked as a general counsel and registered lobbyist while he was Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, and top level officials of the Bush administration.

According to a notarized affidavit signed by Clint Curtis, while he was employed by the NASA Kennedy Space Center contractor, Yang Enterprises, Inc., during 2000, Feeney solicited him to write a program to “control the vote.” At the time, Curtis was of the opinion that the program was to be used for preventing fraud in the in the 2002 election in Palm Beach County, Florida. His mind was changed, however, when the true intentions of Feeney became clear: the computer program was going to be used to suppress the Democratic vote in counties with large Democratic registrations.

According to Curtis, Feeney and other top brass at Yang Enterprises, a company located in a three-story building in Oviedo, Florida, wanted the prototype written in Visual Basic 5 (VB.5) in Microsoft Windows and the end-product designed to be portable across different Unix-based vote tabulation systems and to be “undetectable” to voters and election supervisors.

I just hope he’s wrong — and I worry that the same hope may cause other people to dismiss this one out of hand rather then trying to find out where the facts lead.

The Bulge Was Not Tinfoil - It Was a Trope

The Hill reports, that the Bush bulge was a bulletproof vest:

Call off the conspiracy freaks. Now it can be told: That mysterious bulge on President Bush’s back during the first presidential debate was not an electronic device feeding him answers, but a strap holding his bulletproof vest in place.

And why did they lie about it for such a long time? The supposed answer is also, I will bet, a lie:

The president’s handlers did not want to admit as much during the campaign, for fear of disclosing information related to his personal security while he was on the campaign trail.

Bah. The real reason is that they knew it looks cowardly and that would have been bad for the image. (If the security rationale were true, they wouldn’t admit the truth the day after the eleciton unless Bush never plans to stir from the White House. )

Lies layered on lies. A fun four years, yes indeed.

Tinfoil or For Real?

A scary item (is it true?) submitted to Dave Farber’s Interesting People mailing list by one Ken Deifik:

It occurs to me that one of the questions that could be answered without too much trouble, at least for someone with lots of access to data and a knowlege of statistics, would be: is there any difference in the Bush - Kerry percentages in precincts that used eVoting, especially Diebold but all eVoting machines, as opposed to those that used paper ballots or some other method of voting.  If this question has any meaning for you, I’d ask you to pose to the list, to see anyone with the proper skills and access could carry out such a study.

I hope in the next few days statisticians examine the issue of the exit polls.  Since the early 70’s the exit polls have always been spot on.  I feel ashamed for any journalist who says the exit polls got it wrong in FLA in 2000, because it is clear they got it right.

I have to wonder how John Zogby, who predicted 312 electoral votes for Kerry at 5PM EST 11/2, could have gotten the exit polls so wrong.  Or really if he did.

One reason may be who votes at what time of day?

I just found this posting in the Democratic Underground site
…on several swing states, and EVERY STATE that has EVoting but no paper trails has an unexplained advantage for Bush of around +5% when comparing exit polls to actual results.

In EVERY STATE that has paper audit trails on their EVoting, the exit poll results match the actual results reported within the margin of error.

So we have MATCHING RESULTS for exit polls vs. voting with audits
vs.
A 5% unexplained advantage for Bush without audits.

Say it ain’t so…

Ceci N'est Pas du Tinfoil

OK, this is getting out of the tinfoil category when Salon quotes a NASA scientist who has enhanced photos of Bush’s back during the debates,

I am willing to stake my scientific reputation to the statement that Bush was wearing something under his jacket during the debate,” he says. “This is not about a bad suit. And there’s no way the bulge can be described as a wrinkled shirt.”

This Theory Is Too Wild For Me

Here’s a wacky theory: what if Chief Justice Rehnquist resigns due to ill health, and the court is split 4-4 when it has to decide the election. Apparently the Bush folks are preparing a contingency plan for a recess appointment.

I’m going to go out on a limb here: not going to happen. Why? Rehnquist will not resign in the next few weeks. Not his style, not at all. Of course, if someone on the Supreme Court were to actually die, then all bets are off on this one. And that would create a stir….

Can't They Get Their Stories Straight (Neverending Bulge Dept.)

TalkLeft: Bush Needs to Get His Bulge Stories Straight. Is Karl Rove getting unhinged? How can they be so off-message on this one?

Today's Tinfoil -- Graphic Edition

The American Street brings us this great cartoon. I laughed.

Tinfoil (It's a Vital Nutrient Edition)

What amazes me about the Bush Bulge story is how totally ineptly the White House has dealt with this thing. It would have been so easy to kill this rumor dead: bring on the doctors to say he’s healthy, the Secret Service to say there’s no electronic device, etc.

Instead, the White House brings out … the White House tailor. Never mind that Georges de Paris (!) looks like he moonlights at Hogwarts, the “bulge” he points to in this picture looks like a little ridge—the sort I get on my suits when I hunch up, not a box.

Furthermore, as you can see in this nice recap of the Bush bulge issue, a somewhat similar bulge appears inside Bush’s t-shirt!

The Tinfoil Meme Is Now Mainstream

When Kevin Drum does the tinfoil thing about the strange object on Bush’s back, he does it elegantly. He many only have three pictures, but his pictures have circles and lines (no arrows, alas).

Want more? Try the Bush bulge photo gallery

You know if this were Clinton, Gore or Kerry, the right-wing blogs and the radio (alleged) felons/drug abusers and the cable (alleged) sex perverts would be baying for an investigation. I still can’t quite shake the feeling that this is much ado about nothing, but the strange thing is that the White House is acting guilty. A super-smart Rovian trick to distract? Is he that clever?

Update: This device (via Kevin Drum) fits the pictoral and circumstantial (no doctor’s report this year) evidence all too well.

Can you imagine what would happen if voters knew that both parts of the ticket had wonky (but not Wonkette-y) tickers? Who would vote GOP knowing there was a risk of getting President Dennis Hastert?

Tinfoil Redux

Spiegel Online prints a photo from the SECOND debate showing odd stuff under Bush’s jacket.

The campaign denies Bush had any sort of help during the debate. I believe this: Bush didn’t do well enough to have had help. So these strange wrinkles are either a coincidence, a medical device of some sort (why no physical this year?), or — perhaps — body armor?

Meanwhile, Jay Leno asked John Edwards last night what Edwards thought the bulge was. Edwards suggested it was Bush’s battery. He also proposed the candidates be patted down before the third debate. I think he was joking.

Tinfoil, Revisted

Hey, if you can’t have a Bush boom, have a Bush bulge!

Daily Kos argues there might be something to the idea that Bush had something hidden under his jacket during the first debate, relying primarily on the Bush campaign’s initial reaction to a NYT query about the bulge: a false accusation that the pictures had been doctored. Cryptome, meanwhile, sees tinfoil everywhere and has the techie details, too, including 28 8×10 color glossy photos, sadly lacking, however, in circles and arrows.

Update: Digby explains the Battle of the Bulge — GW Bush’s tailor is to blame! Yes it’s all because, GW Bush uses a very expensive French tailor.

Today's Tinfoil Hat Link

Is Bush Wired?, a web site dedicated to exploring the odd bulges in GW Bush’s jackets…was he wearing some sort of electronic prompter during the first debate?

I’d dismiss this as pure nutso fantasy but for this Salon article (ad view req.) which includes this tidbit:

“Repeated calls to the White House and the Bush national campaign office over a period of three days, inquiring about what the president may have been wearing on his back during the debate, and whether he had used an audio device at other events, went unreturned.”

The failure to deny it may be due to the view it’s beneath contempt. Or…

Today's Tinfoil Hat Link

Why did GW Bush skip his annual physical this year?