My patriotic post

I'm inspired by Digby's re-post of some 2006 reflections on why unregulated state surveillance isn't such a great idea [1], and our president's warning that maitaining the ancient and honorable right of habeus corpus means terrorists might soon be walking Main Streat USA [2], to re-post a patriotic reminder of my own [3]:

Fascinating AP article [4] about the random combination of circumstances that led to a small group of civil rights lawyers getting a glimpse at the quality of the evidence the post-9/11 National Security State uses to choose its targets for warrantless eavesdropping.

Attorney Jon Eisenberg accidentally got to see a National Security Administration log of calls intercepted between an Islamic charity and its American lawyers, stamped TOP SECRET on every page. It's now stored in a bombproof safe in Washington and viewed only by prosecutors with top secret security clearances and a few select federal judges. It is also, Eisenberg says, relying upon his memory—there isn't allowed be any written record of the document's contents, and even the laptop Erenberg used to write briefs for the case is scheduled to be erased—a joke. "Believe me," Eisenberg says, with what I can only imagine to be a bemused but weary sigh, "if this appeared on the front pages of newspapers, national security would not be jeopardized."

That's not hard to believe. The government's "case" [5] against supposed "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla has been such an embarrassment—the feds have 300,000 taped phone calls, only 21 of which refer to Padilla, and the claim is that on those 21 calls, phrases like “playing football”, “eating cheese” and “zucchini” are supposed to refer to his Dr. Evil-like plots—that the defense attorneys have decided not even to dignify them with a response, resting their case without calling a single witness.

There will come a time, decades hence, when we learn more about the tragicomic incompetents and blackguards among those who affect to be our brave anti-terrorist watchmen; you can only erase so many hard drives and so many consciences. Look what happened when FOIA requests and archival digging starting turning documents of the work of our Keystone anti-Kommunist Kops in a previous generation.

The FBI and CIA went after one enemy of America with particular gusto, as an indefatigable historian learned after years of dogged work getting his security file released. J. Edgar Hoover personally classified his case as a "Security Matter"—the designation reserved for those considered potentially violently dangerous to internal security. They were so determined to neutralize this anti-American that they persisted even after an FBI source advised that the subject "appears to be radically oriented however he does not give the impression he is a true revolutionist since he is constantly under the influence of narcotics."

The subject was, yes, John Lennon—or as the FBI called him, "Lennon formerly with the group known as the Beatles."

Read the book [6] or watch the documentary [7]. Lennon was working to organize a series of rock concerts to contribute to Richard Nixon's defeat in the 1972 presidential election. The FBI worked with Nixon and Strom Thurmond to get him deported, in order to stop him.

The FBI tread carefully; wrote one agent, "The source felt that if Lennon's visa is terminated it would be a strategic counter-measure. The source also noted the caution which must be taken with regard to the possible alienation of the so-called 18-year-old-vote if Lennon is expelled from the country." Though they wren't quite careful enough; the files' mistakes make them inadvertent comic masterpieces. His ally in the crusade, Jerry Rubin, showed up on "Eyewitness News" in New York. An agent helpfully wrote, "Rubin appeared to have his hair cut much short that previously shown in other photographs," and also, "ALL EXTREMISTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED DANGEROUS"—apparently even those with haircuts.

The FBI kept telling historian Jon Wiener that the reason they couldn't reveal everything in these files was because the damage to national security "reasonably expected to result from disclosure" included "foreign military retaliation."

I'm not trying to say that the Islamic charity in question, Al-Haramain, is innocuous or innocent like John Lennon; nor that the government's case is as embarrassing as in re: Jose Padilla; or that we should take Eisenberg's word about the silliness of "the Document." I'm only trying to say that the people charged with keeping us "safe" are ordinary human beings, possessed of the potential for venality, incompetence, and even evil like everyone else. And that this is why you don't afford them extraordinary powers without requiring things like judicial oversight. This used to seem obvious. It isn't now. Even to Democrats. [8]

The comments [4] on today's article on "the Document" are fun to read, if that's your cup of tea (it very much is mine). Fun in a tragic sort of way, I mean. They show that there will always be a remnant of Americans who are willing to believe anything their government tells them, even to the point of absurdity.

NOTICE it is the ISLAMISTS that oppose our search for terrorists.....TAKE NOTICE who argues this same argument ........JUST LIKE THE ENEMY.......>

These are the people the Democrats who voted for the Bush Administration's eavesdropping bill are apparently supplicating to these days. Unless they voted for it on the merits, and believe, the experience of John Lennon notwithstanding, that the people to which they've just handed our civil liberties are actually angels.

That one was written eleven months ago, and guess what? That last paragraph: What with the recent house vote on FISA, I don't have to change a word.