NYPD Spies Broadly before 2004 RNC

I keep shying away from writing in this blog because it takes too long to write thoughtful, well-researched stories. But I have no interest in writing shitty damsel-in-distress/cats in trees/media whore with small trembling dog and large SUV/ your kids may be in danger from the following trend which will be embarrassingly referenced-type stories, and little interest in writing bitchy stuff about the outfits that famous people have chosen to wear. If you're interested in this last item, I direct you, with approval of what you will see there and yet recognition that that scene is not mine, to dlisted. Then I remember that I'm writing this blog to provide simple, snappy summaries of what's in the news, not in depth news analysis. So I'm going to try to do that.

Today's story was one I read in the New York Times. Government documents were recently released to the public, and those documents say that the New York Police Department (NYPD) spied on a lot of Americans before the 2004 Republican National Convention (RNC). The NYPD sent agents out to lots of different states, and to Europe and the Middle East, and gathered information about people who planned to protest at the RNC.

That's the whole story.

Here's the way you stop a protest, if you are a policeman. First, arrest the protesters. Hold them in custody until the event they intended to protest is over, then release them without charging them with anything. With any luck, they'll be so grateful to be back on the street that they won't complain.

The NYPD used information about certain protesters, which information was gathered during the pre-RNC spying process, and arrested lots of those protesters and held them and then released them without charging them with anything. They followed the plan I outlined in the last paragraph.

This raises lots of questions, but there are two that I want to consider. Is this sort of thing good? And: does it matter one way or the other?

Is this sort of thing good? Well, if it prevented a terrorist attack, I guess it's good insofar as it prevented the attack. But it certainly makes the part of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights after the first semicolon into nothing but a bunch of words. "But what if they weren't going to assemble peacefully? Aren't the police justified in locking them up?" I can hear silly people asking. To which I hypothetically reply, hey, look at them. They're opposed to the war in Iraq, and probably all other wars. The vast, vast majority of them did not assault police. (Some of them did throw "fake dog feces," whatever that is, at cops. I think this is a silly gesture. I think If you throw something at a cop, you'd better throw something more serious than fake dog feces. Throwing fake dog feces makes you look like a punk-ass who's cruising for an evening of getting the shit beaten out of you by Jerry Orbach in a hospital-green interrogation room.) This group of protesters is not spoiling for a fight. They're spoiling to stand around and chant, and maybe scream, and talk to people who agree with them. A lot of them probably showed up at the protest to stand around with like-minded people, and to attenuate the feeling that the entire country had gone batshit, waterboard, jackboot insane. Throwing them in jail probably isn't going to attenuate that feeling in their minds.

Does it matter that the protests were weakened by the police? The dodgy, cop-out answer, is "It depends on what you think a protest should achieve." If the purpose of the protest is to allow private citizens to express their views, then yes, it does matter that the strength of the protests was diminished. Some of the people did not get to express themselves in the way they had chosen. But if the purpose of the protests was to thwart the Republican Party, then it probably doesn't matter that the strength of the protests was diminished. The Republican Party's plans would have gone ahead just the same, even if there had been a full strength protest.

If the police fuck up your shit at a protest, girls think you're way sexy, or at least way sexier than you were before they fucked up your shit. I have personally seen this happen twice, and I live in the most politically un-engaged part of the country. I've even been so cynical as to doubt the purity of the political motives of male protesters. So maybe lots of people got what they wanted out of the situation. The cops got to beat on some weedy, wiry dorks and girls without bras, and the wiry dorks and girls without bras got an erotic experience which made their post-protest sex fantastic, consecrated as it was by the bond of having suffered under somewhat-provoked state-sponsored violence and tinged with the certainty that you are among the unjustly persecuted.

So, what do I think? I think this was complicated theater. Cops got to feel big, which is the main benefit of the job. Anti-authoritarians got to feel persecuted, which is one of the sweetest feelings for the anti-authoritarian. If the actions of the NYPD actually prevented terrorism, there is no way that they would tell us. Maybe they waterboarded some batshit insane Sunni Saudi Arabians in Egypt until, covered in shit and vomit, they coughed up the dirty secrets of their Manhattan sleeper cells. But I'm sure if that actually happened, we're not learning about it.

Theater. It's all theater.

"Support the Troops"

There seems to be some confusion over the meaning of the phrase "Support the Troops." When Republicans use this phrase it is used accusatorily, in negative constructions such as "The Democratic majority does not support the troops," and it can be replaced with the phrase "want to provide money in the budget to continue the Iraq War." When Democrats use the phrase, they use it mostly positively, as in "I support the troops," where the phrase can be replaced with the less ambiguous phrase "do not want to be thought of as someone who disrespects the military, and do not want to be thought of as someone who is perceived as being out of touch with the concerns of military families." Republicans use the phrase to try to get more money for the Iraq War. Democrats use the phrase to try to look sufficiently respectful of the institution of the military. Since this phrase means two completely different things to these two groups, I think it would be a good idea to retire the phrase and use more direct language. This fine proposition, however, will most likely not find its way into practice.

Halliburton, Alberto Gonzales

Halliburton, which might as well be named Weyland-Yutani, is moving to Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Dubai, U.A.E. is known to be a place where you can get away with business practices that are illegal elsewhere. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, and left that position to become Vice President of the United States. Halliburton is relocating so it can do illegal shit without being investigated.

The Attorney General might be fired by Monday. At least, that's what Jim Cafferty of CNN said earlier today. Jim Cafferty is a gruff, Perry White-type guy who says things to Wolf Blitzer on CNN. During the news and bullshit cycle that had a lot of Anna Nicole Smith's dead body in it, he sarcastically asked Wolf Blitzer "Is Anna Nicole Smith still dead?" to which Wolf Blitzer responded "Yes, she is." To which Jim Cafferty responded "Oh, good. Because I can't get enough of the coverage of her death." That's the kind of guy we're dealing with here, with Jim Cafferty. A guy whom I recognize as an ally.
Anyway, here's the Alberto Gonzales story. He maybe masterminded a plan to get rid of some federal prosecutors who were insufficiently Bush-friendly and replace them with federal prosecutors who were Bush-friendly. And if he didn't mastermind it, then he's in a shitty situation, because it happened on his watch. And it's bad because those federal prosecutor positions are supposed to be protected from the nastiness of partisan politics. Many, many people are very upset over this because it's really unusual for federal prosecutors to be fired before their terms are over. Lots of Democrats want Gonzales to leave office. Even some Republicans don't want him to be Attorney General anymore.
The last item I have to report is connected to the Gonzales/federal prosecutor matter: some emails have surfaced which show that Karl Rove was involved in this federal prosecutor firing scandal. Which is a big deal, because Karl Rove is the chief Republican strategist, and meets with the President really often.
The President is trying to collect all the powers separated by the constitution into the three branches of government. Giving a historical account of why those powers were separated takes a really long time, but let's just say that the story of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Europe tell the story of why we've separated those governmental powers. And let's remember that the Thirty Years War was a part of that process, and that that was a war that killed about thirty percent of the civilian population in Europe. Also, that war was one of the reasons that we separate the church and the state in modern post-Enlightenment nations. George Bush is trying really hard to be a king.

* originally I identified Dubai as being in India, not in the United Arab Emirates. Some readers will want to know why I did this. The answer is simple. I am stupid.

Wikipedia and Fox News

The Wikipedia discussion page for the entry "Fox News Channel" is a gallery of people who are deliciously incapable of civil debate. They're probably also true believers. None of this is surprising. Reading it won't make you smarter, but it will probably make you feel superior and lonely. (Reference)

Quick Roundup

George H.W. Bush, the former President, collapsed while playing golf. He was taken to the hospital, treated for dehydration, held overnight, and released. This story doesn't mean anything. This story doesn't tie into any corporate or government agenda. So it's safe for news agencies to report. It's a human interest story. You're likely to see a lot more of it. You won't see any more of it here, unless GHWB dies.

Next.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been pressuring judges around the country to investigate and indict Democrats. When the judges refuse to change their priorities, Gonzales has the judges investigated and fired. When asked why the judges were fired, Gonzales said that there were "performance related issues". That means that the judges weren't doing their jobs. More recently, though, Gonzales said that "policy issues" played a factor in the firing of the judges. This means "they didn't support the White House Administration's plans enough," which is another way of saying "they didn't target the Democratic Party ferociously enough". Which means that The White House Administration isn't content with having two of the three branches of government. It's not enough that they have the Executive and the erstwhile rubber-stamp Republican Congress or the the more recent bitchy pussy Democratic Congress. George Bush is looking to undo the work of the 17th and 18th centuries and collect all powers into one unaccountable man. So long, democracy!

Expect to hear more about this judicial bullshit.

Another 8,500 troops are being sent to Iraq. The Iraq war was a success, but not for the reasons that were originally claimed. There are four massive bases in Iraq now. An army base is not like a small pill-box with a machine gun on the front of it. An army base looks like an American suburb. It has lots of houses and an airport and some apartment buildings and a little shopping mall, and it's kind of comfortable to live there. There are four of them in Iraq. If you think that we're going to pull our troops out of Iraq and abandon those four army bases, then fuck yourself and the unicorn you rode in on. I don't like it any more than you, but nobody cares enough to end the war in Iraq. So it's not going to end, and we're not going to give up our assets there.

In other news, American TV is full of fucking insufferable commericals. And this North American continent is a big fucking baby when it comes to alcohol. It's okay to have a beer with lunch, you fucking Puritans. It's not cool or rebellious to have a glass of wine with lunch, or a glass of beer with lunch. It's just a drink, and if you get drunk after having had only one of them, then you've been acculturated into some fucked-up shit.

Nevada Democratic Party refuses to deal with FOX News

Barack Obama's campaign has decided not to deal with Fox News on the grounds that any interaction with Fox News would be bad for the campaign. Fox News has repeatedly smeared Obama, saying that he is a Muslim radical (he isn't), saying that he smokes (he does, but so do half the people I know and I really don't give a shit if the President smokes or not), and implying that his middle name, Hussein, means something mysterious and bad and is a reason to regard him as a bad candidate.

I think it's good that the Nevada Democratic Party has refused to deal with Fox News. Treating anyone on Fox as though they're a source of news is an error. There have been a lot of things in the past month that have been said on Fox or by people who own Fox or by people who are employees of Fox that I thought about writing about here, but after more consideration I decided that it would be a waste of my time and would not contribute to anyone's understanding of world affairs.

Good on you, Nevada Democratic Party!

I'm not opposed to Coulter calling Edwards a faggot or Ailes saying that the French are cowards or Sean Hannity saying lots of retarded shit. But I am opposed to treating those people like they deserve respect. I'm opposed to treating them like they're anything other than liars.

By the way, when people like Karl Rove say that Barack Obama is "articulate," what they mean is "Niggers can't talk English very good. Let's not forget who the niggers are, now. And let's all remember that nice people don't vote for or associate with niggers." What I'm saying is that Karl Rove is a racist. Which you probably already knew. He is, after all, a Republican. I'm in the explanation business here, though, so in case you missed it, Karl Rove is a racist and he works for a racist political organization.

The President, however, is not articulate. Somehow, that doesn't make him a nigger, though. I guess the going Republican Party assumption is that niggers aren't articulate. But that can't be true anymore, because they're saying that Barack Obama IS articulate. And the Republican Party sure would jump at the chance publically to call him a nigger, so that we wouldn't forget that he is black and so that we would be afraid of what black people might do to us as an electorate. So I guess that these Party assumptions don't mean much except to racist dipshits who would rather have their children killed so that Cheney's friends can get richer than have to look at a black President once every few months when they bother to try following the news.

Scooter Libby Found Guilty

Scooter Libby was just found guilty around 1 P.M. EST, March 6, 2007. He was found guilty on several charges of obstruction of justice.

This is an important development in the discussion over the White House Administration's treatment of critics of the war. Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame were punished after Wilson discredited the White House Administration's claim that Nigeria had sold yellowcake uranium to Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government. It is widely believed that Richard Bruce Cheney, Vice President of the United States, ended Valerie Plame's CIA career in retaliation for Wilson's report, which undermined one of the White House's several justifications for Iraq2. Valerie Plame is Joseph Wilson's wife.

More as this develops.

UPDATE: I've been poking around on Google Analytics, which is a program that lets me see who's visiting my website and what they look at while they're here. Most people looked at the stats on the page about the belief in God declining. The page that got the fewest hits was the one on the 1954 Lavon affair. The fact that the 1954 Lavon Affair page got the fewest hits has caused me to postpone publication of my post on the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which was another important event in Israeli history.

I think there's a chance that I haven't been direct enough in this blog. So I'm going to write about the broader implications of Scooter Libby's trial, and I'm going to write it without really giving any thought to the form of it.

The fact that Scooter Libby was found guilty is a good thing. It shows that the people who were on the jury want the President of the United States to be accountable for his actions. It shows that the people on the jury don't want the Vice President to be able to do whatever he wants. It shows that there is an interest in preventing the President from being too much like a King.

The President took the country to war. The Congress agreed that a war with Iraq was a good thing. That was in 2003, in the early part of the year. But Joseph Wilson thought that the White House's justification for the war, which was that Iraq had bought yellowcake uranium from Nigeria in preparation for building an atomic bomb, was bogus. (reference, which is a letter written by Joseph Wilson himself, and which is highly recommended) In response, Joseph Wilson's wife CIA career was ended by the office of the Vice President. The office of the Vice President used Robert Novak, or worked with Robert Novak, to publicize that Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was an undercover agent in the CIA.

Now Scooter Libby has been found guilty of not telling the truth when he was asked to explain when he knew that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. That's called obstruction of justice. Libby was found guilty on four out of five charges of it.

But the jury member who spoke to the press said that during deliberations the jury had been asking why they weren't trying Karl Rove. Apparently they thought that Karl Rove was somehow responsible.

And everyone wants to know if Cheney had Plame thrown to the dogs, and then let Scooter Libby take the fall for it.

On one level, this trial is about whether or not Scooter Libby lied about knowing about Valerie Plame's CIA membership. On another level, this trial is about whether it is still allowed to question the President when the country is at war. Wilson had credible evidence that the White House Administration was lying, that the White House knew that Iraq had not bought uranium from Niger (by the way, if Niger did sell uranium to Iraq, why haven't we punished Niger for having sold it to them?). But when Wilson published his findings, his wife's CIA cover was blown, which could have been fatal. Robert Novak published Valerie Plame's identity in the Washington Post on July 14, 2003. Was Novak ordered to publish this by the White House Administration? Why would a journalist do the bidding of the government?

But on another level, this trial is about whether the President of the United States has a personal army to be used for whatever he wants. This trial is about whether the President is a King. Can the President send people to build bases in foreign countries without vetting it past the people? If people point out that the justifications for the war are bad, is the President allowed to silence those people? Is the President allowed to do whatever he wants, without Congressional oversight? Those are the other questions which this trial poses.