The newly drafted bill under consideration in Congress allows the US to listen in on foreign terrorist conversations. Advances in technology including computers and cell phones means that the prior legislation, enacted decades ago, is out-of-date. The proposed legislation enacts many powerful new protections against governmental abuse to benefit the privacy of US citizens, including those abroad. Congress will be kept regularly and fully informed through the Intelligence Committee. Separate bills have passed the House and Senate. Yet, there is no bill on the President’s desk to sign. As a result, the temporary legislation that preceded these bills has now expired. Harry Reid, George W. Bush, and above all, Nancy Pelosi have failed. Now our ability to stop terrorist activity lies in shambles. Harry Reid, George W. Bush, and Nancy Pelosi have been selfish in aggrandizing their own political positions no matter what the cost. Apparently they think that risking another 9/11 is worth it if they can whip up their political bases for the November elections. Sickening.

We are presently engaged in a dire struggle to stop suicide bombs and terrorist attacks. A few hours ago, we let our guard down for no reason. We cannot let the violence of Iraq, reduced as it is since the surge, spread to the US.

The claimed sticking point is whether telecommunications companies should have protection from lawsuits for helping the government listen in on terrorists in the days after 9/11. They should have that immunity. Yet, some have suggested that business and government must not cooperate or we risk fascism. A little history suffices to remedy any misconception. Business and government cooperated extensively in World War II. Without that, the US would not have achieved victory over fascism. In prior years, FDR attempted to spark extensive business-government cooperation in the New Deal, but FDR is not considered a fascist. Business and government often cooperate. Cooperation is not ipso facto tyrannical. The desire for freedom concerns itself with abuses of power. We have First Amendment freedoms in America today and free elections coming up that undermine any claim that our government is fascist.

There is no record of any serious abuse of power in terrorist surveillance in the days after 9/11. US agencies were not exploiting the new cooperation with telecoms after 9/11 to dig up dirt on Americans by listening to their phone calls, like East Germany would have done. There is every indication that our intelligence services acted in good faith at that time. There is no evidence that any telecom company betrayed its customers. In the days after 9/11 we were all worried about more attacks that would kill thousands at a time. There is no evidence that any American’s privacy was invaded by foreign surveillance. If that did happen, it would have been a regrettable mistake, yet forgivable in the immediate days following 9/11. The telecoms were trying to do the right thing for the good of our country.

Benjamin Franklin wisely said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” A temporary and minor reduction in privacy was justified by a threat that became real on 9/11. Now we have new legislation to permanently protect our privacy and liberties and provide a cornerstone for our future security. We need not punish telecoms who acted in good faith in the meantime. We deserve both liberty and security.

To forestall continued squabbling, might I suggest a compromise bill? Make the telecoms liable during that period if they did not act in good faith. If they did act in good faith, grant them amnesty. This compromise is a last resort.

Contrary to what conservatives are saying, trial lawyers are not fighting FISA. Maybe civil rights lawyers like the ACLU are currently in the dark and are fighting the update to FISA for no good reason. Trial lawyers are not against this change, even though it grants limited immunity to an industry. In this case, the protections afforded to our lives, liberty, and privacy justify the result.

Give the telecoms amnesty as per the Senate bill. Pass the legislation. Stop playing chicken with American security.

Step back for a second. Is fighting terrorism a war? If not, fighting terrorism is a law enforcement action. Regardless of one’s opinion, it is plain that we cannot stop terrorism unless we give the right tools to either law enforcement or the military–take your pick. One necessary tool against foreign terrorists is foreign surveillance. Congress has put together an adequate bill. Now it is time to make it law.

Earlier in the day, Nawaz al Sharif, Bhutto’s recent running mate, was nearly shot. (*)

Bhutto (1953-2007) stood for women’s rights, modernity compatible with religion, and democracy. While prime minister of Pakistan, the Taliban took root in Afghanistan. Later, in a speech to the Pakistani parliament in 1998, Bhutto spoke in favor of cutting ties with the Taliban. (*)

Subsequently in 1998, with a cloud of corruption charges hanging over her, she went into exile in Dubai. She said the charges were politically motivated. In 2007, she returned to Pakistan in part thanks to the United States working with the Pakistani government. Bhutto was granted amnesty. In an election, Bhutto’s side did very well. Pakistan’s leader, General Musharraf announced a state of emergency. Bhutto had stated many times that Musharraf’s cabinet and government is rife with Al Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers. (*) In 2004, for example, she stated that prior to 9/11 Musharraf’s government was the biggest supporter of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The New York Daily News reported on December 26, 2007: (*)

Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto yesterday accused President Pervez Musharraf of failing to stop the spread of Islamic militants and promised to crack down on the groups if she wins next month’s parliamentary election.

She did not give specifics.

As it turns out, maybe Musharraf was right to call for the state of emergency. Maybe he should have tightened it.

Since 9/11, Musharraf has worked with the international community to fight the war on terrorism. Key Al Qaeda suspects like Khalid Sheik Muhammed were arrested on Pakistani soil.

I do not share Bhutto’s deep skepticism of Musharraf’s committment to the war on terrorism. I feel Musharraf has turned against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Bhutto’s father was assassinated by a military dictator and I believe feelings lingered in Bhutto against Musharraf, who at the least resembles a military dictator. I believe we should work with Musharraf and encourage Bhutto’s followers to support the current government.

The highest priority for Pakistan should be resistance to extremism. Once that is established, other goals can gain priority.

Pakistan is an unstable country. It might be prudent for NATO to offer the Pakistani government a part of an island for lease for the purpose of safe storage of weapons of mass destruction. As part of this deal, a nuclear guarantee could be granted to Pakistan while its WMD is out of the country. The deal would include a next step which would be a peace process with India.

The world’s goal should be to have a Pakistan and India living as peaceful neighbors, neither falling prey to extremism.

Update: A camerman said Bhutto waved to the crowd through the sun roof, then shots rang out, and then the explosion occurred. (*) CNN has apparently now removed this story from their site. There is fogginess, confusion, and misinformation on the exact particulars of the assassination.

It happened in Rawalpindi, the headquarters of the Pakistani military. Bhutto had prepared an e-mail for posthumous delivery. In it she blamed Musharraf for her death. In my view, the assassination was an Al Qaeda job. By performing the attack in Rawalpindi they encourage shifting of blame to the government of Pakistan. Bhutto must have been perceived as a stronger enemy of Al Qaeda than Musharraf. I don’t doubt there is infiltration to a degree of Al Qaeda and Taliban into the Pakistani armed forces, including to a degree in Rawalpindi. I do doubt that Musharraf was in the conspiracy. I would like to see investigated Bhutto’s allegations against cabinet-level ministers in Pakistan as to Al Qaeda infiltration.

Yesterday, ABC News released a long report on its web site. Today, Americablog.com raised a highly alarming question based on that ABC News report. Below the “A ‘Troubled’ Young Man” sub-heading, the ABC News report stated:

Some news accounts have suggested that Cho had a history of antidepressant use, but senior federal officials tell ABC News that they can find no record of such medication in the government’s files. This does not completely rule out prescription drug use, including samples from a physician, drugs obtained through illegal Internet sources, or a gap in the federal database, but the sources say theirs is a reasonably complete search.

Americablog.com has played this as “The Bushies” trying to spy on America. More likely, however, is that this database pre-existed the presidency of George W. Bush.

A few points. First, it was an accidental release. If ABC News was going to announce the database on purpose they would have done so in a carefully crafted “special report” seemingly designed to alleviate Americans’ fears about their constitutional rights.

Second, ABC seems to have known about the database before the April 17 report. If that is true, they should admit it and state why they kept the secret rather than doing the journalistically responsible thing and report it.

Third, I would like to entertain the possibility that there is some law passed by Congress that grants the government the right to keep such a database, but unfortunately, I have fallen into a deeply skeptical camp against that scenario. For example, HIPAA does not provide for such a database. If this database is actually legal under HIPAA, then HIPAA is a total failure of a law.

Fourth, the full details of this database must be made public immediately.

The government does not own us. This database makes no sense except as part of the general project of extending government control further and further into the lives of the people.

Due to blog spam, comments are disabled, except on just a few posts. I’m moving it to a different web host, which may result in uneven operation for the next few days.

Iraqi reaction from ruling party Shia elements has been negative. (†) Nevertheless, Sunni poliiticians will see this as an opportunity to swing the government away from sectarian politics and toward national unity. The Kurds appear to be negative on the ISG, as is likely. The ISG wisely disagrees with the notion of splitting Iraq into three countries, and furthermore suggests the US should draw its force levels down, reducing the chances of an irresponsible Kurdish independence.

ISG panelist and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor made the following remarks at the press conference today. But first, remarks by President Clinton’s former chief of staff Leon Panetta.

LEON PANETTA: As I told the President this morning, this war has badly divided this country. It’s divided Republicans from Democrats and to some extent the President from the people. And policy sometimes with those divisions has been reduced to a thirty-second soundbite that runs the gamut from victory or stay the course to cut and run. And what this group tried to do, five Democrats and five Republicans, is to try to set aside those code words and those divisions and try to look at the realities that are there.

And I would suggest to the President and to the American people that if you look at the realities of what’s taking place there, the fact that violence is out of control, the fact that Iraqis ultimately have to control their future, they have to take care of security, they’ve got to deal with the region in that area, that ultimately you can find consensus here. This country cannot be at war and be as divided as we are today. You’ve got to unify this country. And I’d suggest to the President that what we did in this group can perhaps serve as an example to try to pull together the leadership of the Congress and try to focus on the recommendations we’ve made.

We have made a terrible commitment in Iraq in terms of our blood and our treasure. And I think we owe it to them to try one last chance at making Iraq work, and more importantly to take one last chance at unifying this country on this war. I think the President understands that he simply is not going to be able to proceed with whatever policy changes he wants to implement if we’re divided. That is the principal goal in my mind that he has to accomplish.

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR: I would be willing to add a comment about what Leon Panetta has just expressed so well. We’ve said in the report that we agree with the goal of US policy in Iraq as stated by the President: an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. And to do that, we’ve made these various recommendations on a consensus basis. It’s my belief that if a large segment of our country gets behind that on a consensus basis that it’s very likely we can move forward and make some progress toward that statement of goals. And this is not an ongoing commission. It really is out of our hands having done what we did.

It’s up to you, frankly. You are the people who speak to the American people. You’re there interpreting this and talking to America. And I hope the American people feel that if they are behind something in broad terms that we’ll be better off. I think we will and I hope in general that others think so too.

(Video available from C-SPAN. )

The primary objective of the ISG was to find a workable political consensus for implementing the inevitable changes that will occur to US policy in Iraq. That is a worthy cause, and perhaps they have achieved it.

The other, perhaps unexpected result is the pressure ratcheting up on the Maliki government of Iraq. If Iraq is to establish security, it must come primarily from the government of Iraq. My guess is that Maliki is too closely tied with militant Shia groups like that of Muqtada al-Sadr. We are likely to see Maliki’s coalition implode within the coming months. Hopefully, we will then see a transition to more effective Iraq governance.

I would hope that the US government has learned the lessons of Mossadegh, Diem, and Allende. Assassinating foreign leaders does not work. Forcing a coup d’etat would also be incredibly foolish.

Allow the organic political processes to work in Iraq. Continue to push the Iraqi government into the lead role in its country’s security.

As for talking with Iran and Syria, that is better than just bombing them now. The whole point of creating an active front in the war on terror in Iraq was to stave off a larger, wider war. That objective remains as possible as ever. Nevertheless, our strategic dealings with Iran need deeper contemplation than they are currently receiving.