Abu G Went Up the Hill to Carry Bushie's Water

Alberto went back up the Hill today and once more faced a stern and scowling Senate Judiciary Committee. By the time it was all said and done, Senator Leahy was hinting at perjury charges and Senator Specter raised the specter of a special prosecutor.

Noting aWol’s unprecedented invocation of executive privilege, Specter observed that “the president’s word stands and the constitutional authority and responsibility for congressional oversight is gone.” He went on to voice that one of the alternatives he has been kicking around is the appointment of a special prosecutor. “The attorney general has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor,” said Specter. “You’re recused, but somebody else could do it. You’re recused because you know all of the principals. You have a conflict of interest. But doesn’t the president have an identical conflict of interest?”

The AG did not disappoint those of us who have come to expect the very worst from his pathetic, pathological appearances.

He disputed charges that morale in the Justice Department has plummeted under his leadership, saying that morale can best be measured by "output." The department's output in the last six months has been "outstanding," he asserted.

"I've decided to stay and fix the problems," he said in response to a question.

Senator Leahy was decidedly not buying what Gonzo was selling:

But Gonzales came under withering criticism from the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), and from its top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.)

"The attorney general has lost the confidence of the Congress and the American people," Leahy said. He said the administration "has squandered our trust" and told Gonzales bluntly, "I don't trust you."

And Senator Specter seemed to blast the hapless Gonzo with both barrels:

Specter said there was "evidence of low morale" at the Justice Department and blasted what he described as Gonzales's lack of "personal credibility." He called the department "dysfunctional." Specter raised the prospect of calling for a special prosecutor to press a potential contempt-of-Congress citation over the White House's refusal to provide certain documents and sworn testimony regarding the firing of nine federal prosecutors last year. He denounced the Bush administration's stand that it would prohibit the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia from pursuing a contempt citation.

"Now if that forecloses a determination of whether executive privilege has been properly imposed, then the president in that manner can stymie congressional oversight by simply saying there is executive privilege," Specter said. That would spell the end of congressional oversight and take the controversy "to a really incredible level," he said.

"Now we've been exploring some alternatives," Specter said, noting that "the attorney general has the authority to appoint a special prosecutor." He told Gonzales, "You're recused, but somebody else could do it."

Specter added, "We also have the alternative of convening the Senate and having a contempt citation and trying it in the Senate."

Gonzo’s pledge to stay on and roll up his sleeves and get to work setting the department back right is simply staggering. WTF???

There is no confidence in the Attorney General from the rank-and-file in the Justice Department. They are despondent and have zero confidence in their compromised, beleaguered “leader.”

Senior staff has resigned in unprecedented numbers. Candidates refuse employment with the department. At least half of the top jobs at Main Justice are unfilled and others are staffed with temps.

Legislative priorities are not being addressed, including revisions to the intelligence laws and anti-crime proposals. "It takes away from normal work," one recently departed Justice official said about the persistent controversy over Gonzales's role in the firings and the use of improper political considerations in hiring career employees. "It obviously has a serious impact," said the former official, who would discuss the department's internal workings only if not identified.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have called on Gonzales to resign, but he has steadfastly refused, taking the slings and arrows of public and congressional outrage for his boss. He staunchly, stubbornly hangs on, knowing that his boss will never fire the firewall that stands between him and criminal investigations and prosecutions. The Senate has no confidence in him, and the vote indicates. No, it wasn’t sixty – but it wasn’t less than fifty, either. Remember that.

Let’s face it – without Gonzales, a competent attorney general would have to be installed. The Democratic-controlled Congress would not confirm a lackey like Gonzales. (Imagine Jack Danforth as AG…Oh, reverie…Not only would those Main Justice jobs get snapped up by well-qualified candidates, there would be resignations in the West Wing sufficient to stop the administration dead in its tracks.)

So make with the impeachment of this hapless, sad little man who feebly feigns a desire to do his job, now that it’s all come undone and he is exposed for what he is: a not-to-bright, ideologically driven, inept and compromised failure.

Let me finish with an installment of “What My Lawyer Said”

“This is precisely why I have been a raving lunatic for months … about the necessity of initiating an impeachment investigation, even if it is only as to Gonzales to start. Running out the clock in order to protect our majorities, gain some seats and install a Democratic administration does not cut it. That is akin to doing some public service announcements and hoping crime disappears in your community. The facts and extent of harm must be fleshed out in a formal investigation, the public must be allowed to understand the full nature and extent of what has occurred, and those responsible must be held to account. If not, the ugly beast continues to raise it’s ugly head with impunity in the future.”

Well said, Counselor.

There's more: "Abu G Went Up the Hill to Carry Bushie's Water" >>

Brett Kavanaugh Apparently Lied To The Senate Judiciary Committee -- Leahy Is Outraged

According to the official White House Announcement Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed on May 26, 2006, as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The DC Circuit hears appeals from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and reviews the decisions of a number of administrative agencies.

He was sworn in on June 1, 2006. For Brett Kavanaugh life must have seemed good. A wonderful legal career. He had already passed one confirmation process. If one of those old geezers on the Supreme Court retired before the end of Bush's term, who knows. Yeh, Leahy had been a bit of a prick during the confirmation process when he asked all those questions about the President's detention policy. The same could be said of Durbin, but no worries.

No worries that is until Wednesday when Chairman Patrick Leahy wrote a letter to Alberto Gonzales. It seems when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh testified that he was not aware of the Administration's legal justifications relating to the treatment of detainees until it became public in 2004.

In answering a direct question from Senator Leahy he said detainee policy "was not part of my docket, either in the counsel's office or as staff secretary." He gave similar answers to questions from Senator Durbin.

It turns out that this week an article in the Washington Post and a story on NPR dispute Kavenaugh's claim that detention policy wasn't part of his job. From Leahy's letter

According to a June 25,2007, article in the Washington Post and a June 26 report on National Public Radio, Mr. Kavanaugh took part in discussions by White House lawyers in 2002 about whether the Supreme Court would uphold the Administration's detention policies. Both reports confirm that Mr. Kavanaugh advised that Justice Anthony Kennedy, for whom he had served as a law clerk, would reject presidential discretion to lock up U.S. citizens as enemy combatants without representation by counsel.

Leahy's letter concludes:

I take the inconsistency between these news reports and Mr. Kavanaugh's testimony very seriously. False testimony by any witness is troubling and undermines the Senate's ability to fulfill its constitutional duties on behalf of the American people. But my concern is heightened because the subject matter of the possibly false testimony was highly controversial and played a critical role in many Senators' consideration of Mr.Kavanaugh's nomination for a lifetime appointment to one of the courts most involved in reviewing those very same detention policies. For these reasons, I have no choice but to refer the matter to you for appropriate investigation and prosecutorial action.

Kavenaugh's Cadillac ride to the Supreme Court might have just suffered a blowout. It's probably time for the Judge to lawyer up.

This story expands on Gadfly's post from earlier in the week.

There's more: "Brett Kavanaugh Apparently Lied To The Senate Judiciary Committee -- Leahy Is Outraged" >>

Leahy ready to prosecute judge

Vermont’s Patrick Leahy had extra Wheaties this week, or something. Now, he’s ready to have appeals judge Brett Kavanaugh prosecuted if evidence indicates he lied to Congress over detention policies for the so-called enemy combatants. Supposedly, Kavanaugh participated in 2002 White House discussions of detention policy and legality, but told the Senate in his 2006 confirmation hearing he had no connection with the policy.

Now, it’s possible this could be a bargaining chip over the wiretap subpoenas, or this could be a 2x4 blunt instrument in conjunction with those subpoenas. But, clearly, Leahy’s ready to file more and more stuff against the administration.

There's more: "Leahy ready to prosecute judge" >>

Schlozman to Senate---You Know What I Said, Sorry I Really Meant To Say Something Else.

Last week I reported that Bradley Schlozman wanted to revise his testimony concerning the decision to go forward with the ACORN indictments just days before the November, 2006, election.

Yesterday Mr. Schlozman sent a letter to Chairman Patrick Leahy attempting clarify his controversial testimony. This is Leahy’s response:

“It is deeply troubling that after weeks of preparation Mr. Schlozman appears to have misled the Committee and the public about his decision to file an election eve lawsuit in direct conflict with longstanding Justice Department policy. I asked him repeatedly about this case at the hearing because of concerns that it was done to use law enforcement power improperly to affect the outcome of the election, which is the reason the Department instituted the policy as a safeguard against such manipulation.

“This Justice Department and this Administration already suffer from a severe credibility crisis, and learning that yet another senior official was less than forthcoming during his testimony before Congress does little to restore any of the lost trust or eroding confidence in their leadership. It is difficult to get to the facts when Administration officials fail to come clean, but the Committee will continue to pursue the truth behind this matter.”

It remains to be seen whether Mr. Schlozman will be successful in his bald faced attempt to step back from his perjury. Not long ago the term "Senate lion" meant something. Now the Democratic majority are more like Senate sheep. Given the utter impotence displayed by the Senate Democrats the last few days, I wouldn't bet against Mr. Schlozman.

Think progress suggests I was mistaken in my original post. They say Schlozman used the word "directed" ten and not nine times.

There's more: "Schlozman to Senate---You Know What I Said, Sorry I Really Meant To Say Something Else." >>

The Dog Ate My Homework.

The statement of Senator Patrick Leahy Chairman, Judiciary Committee United States Senate made on April 12, 2007.

Today we mark the 100th day of the new Congress. While we have much more to do on behalf of the American people, much has already been accomplished. We have heard the American people’s call for accountability and competence in their government and have started making those goals a reality. We have returned the focus to the rights and interests of the American people.

Just as I have commended the Members of the Judiciary Committee for their help and active participation in the work of our Committee, I come to the Senate today to thank the Majority Leader and those Senators who have been working so hard to restore balance to our government, protect the liberties and rights of all Americans and revive America’s leadership in the world.

First and foremost, we are making progress restoring the Senate and the Congress to their proper constitutional role. From the FBI’s illegal and improper use of National Security Letters to the politically motivated dismissal of so many of the Nation’s U.S. Attorneys, there are concerns about the competence and independence of the Department of Justice. This pattern of abuse of authority and mismanagement causes me, and many others on both sides of the aisle, to wonder whether the FBI and Department of Justice have been faithful stewards of the great trust that the Congress and American people have placed in them. We need to keep our Nation safe, while respecting the privacy rights and civil liberties of all Americans. Last year in the former Congress, the Administration sought expanded powers in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation, and to more freely use National Security Letters. The Administration got these powers, and they have badly bungled both.

The Judiciary Committee early oversight efforts included our January 18 hearing with Attorney General Gonzales. There we examined the change in course of this Administration, which had engaged in warrantless wiretapping of Americans contrary to the law for years. Under the watchful eye of the new Congress, the President’s program for warrantless wiretaps on Americans has been revised and the government is seeking approval for all such wiretaps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as the law requires.

We must engage in all surveillance necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, but we can and should do so in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans, including the right to privacy. The issue has never been whether to monitor suspected terrorists but doing it legally and with proper checks and balances to prevent abuses. The Administration’s recent reversal of course and was a good first step.

Last month we held an oversight hearing with FBI Director Mueller in which we called him to task for the longstanding FBI abuses of national security letters. The Inspector General’s report we insisted be provided included troubling findings of widespread illegal and improper use of National Security Letters to obtain Americans’ phone, financial, credit and other records. Inspector General Glenn Fine testified that there could be thousands of additional violations among the tens of thousands of National Security Letters that the FBI is now using each year. The Inspector General also found widespread use by the FBI of so-called “exigent letters.” These letters, which are not authorized by any statute, were issued at least 739 times to obtain Americans’ phone records when there was often no emergency and never a follow-up subpoena, as the FBI had promised. Despite these extensive abuses, the top leadership at the FBI sat idly by for years, doing nothing to stop this practice.

We questioned the FBI Director about these matters and reports that the FBI has repeatedly submitted inaccurate information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in its efforts to obtain secret warrants in terrorism and espionage cases -- severely undermining the Government’s credibility in the eyes of the Chief Judge of that Court. These abuses are unacceptable. Director Mueller now knows that and knows that these abuses and violations can no longer be continued or repeated.

The Judiciary Committee is now in the midst of an investigation in which we are uncovering an abuse of power that threatens the independence of U.S. Attorneys offices around the country and that undermines the trust and confidence of all Americans in federal law enforcement. We are examining the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys and are trying to get to the truth in order to prevent these kinds of abuses from happening again.

I want the American people to have a Justice Department and United States Attorneys offices that enforce the law without regard to political influence and partisanship. I want the American people to have confidence in federal law enforcement and I want our federal law enforcement officers to have the independence they need to be effective and merit the trust of the American people.

Sadly, what we have heard from the Administration has been a series of shifting explanations and excuses and a lack of accountability or acknowledgement of the seriousness of this matter. The women and men replaced and whose reputations were then stained by those seeking to justify these firings as “performance related” were appointees of President Bush. Several had significant achievements in office and glowing performance reviews.

As we learn more details about the ousters of these U.S. Attorneys the story grows more troubling. Had we accepted the initial testimony of the Attorney General and other Department officials we would not have gotten to the truth. The White House and the Attorney General have dodged Congress’s questions and ducked real accountability for years. In the past they counted on a rubberstamping Congress to avoid accountability. The American people have a new Congress, one that looks for answers.

The Attorney General has admitted “mistakes were made” without specifying what they were. He will have another chance to tell the whole truth next Tuesday at our next Judiciary Committee oversight hearing. The days when he could come by once a year and not answer questions are over.

I made no secret during his confirmation hearing of my concern whether Mr. Gonzales could serve as an independent Attorney General of the United States on behalf of the American people and leave behind his role as counselor to President Bush. The Department of Justice should serve the American people by making sure the law is enforced without fear or favor. It should not be turned into a political arm of the White House.

For years preceding this new Congress, accountability has been lacking in this Administration. Loyalty to the President has been rewarded over all else. That lack of accountability, and lack of the checks and balances that fostered it, must end and, I hope, has ended.

We do not need another commendation for the “heckuva job” done by those who have failed in their essential duties to the American people. True accountability means being forthcoming, and it means there are consequences for improper actions.

The White House continues to stand by the firings of the U.S. attorneys and despite assurances by the President that we would receive cooperation, documents and access to witnesses, the White House has yet to produce a single document or make any witnesses available.

Now we are learning that the “off book” communications they were having about these actions, by using Republican political email addresses, have not been preserved. Like the famous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes, it appears likely that key documentation has been erased or misplaced. This sounds like the Administration’s version of the dog ate my homework. I am deeply disturbed that just when this Administration is finally subjected to meaningful oversight, it cannot produce the necessary information. This Administration has worn out the benefit of the doubt and undermined whatever credibility it had left. The American people are right that they are entitled to full and honest public testimony of the White House staff responsible for this debacle.

We have asked for Administration officials and now former officials to cooperate with the Judiciary Committee in its inquiry and I hope that they will. Through the Committee’s oversight work so far, we know some of the answers to some of the questions we have been asking, and the answers are troubling. We have learned that most of the U.S. Attorneys that were asked to resign were doing their jobs well and were fired for not bending to the political will of some in Washington. Apparently, their reward for their efforts at rooting out serious public corruption is a kick out the door.

Along with these oversight matters the Judiciary Committee has taken up questions relating to the war in Iraq and congressional authority to condition funding, the plight of Iraqi refugees, the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group on policing and the administration of justice in Iraq, and contracting fraud and abuse in Iraq. We have examined enforcement of our antitrust laws, restoring open government by reinvigorating the Freedom of Information Act, ending antitrust immunity for insurers, increasing drug competition, strengthening protections against identity theft and providing for fair and comprehensive immigration reform.

We have also moved legislative initiatives. Indeed, I think the first legislation passed by the Senate this year was our bill to restore the cost of living adjustment for federal judges. We have passed a bill to amend the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act to honor the contribution of Cesar Chavez and other outstanding Americans. We passed by a bipartisan vote of 94 to 2 a bill to repeal that part of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization that had contributed to the U.S. attorney firings and thereby moved decisively to repeal the Attorney General’s unlimited authority to appoint so-called interim U.S. Attorneys without Senate consideration. At long last, we have given final passage to the bill against animal fighting that has languished for so many years. And we have passed the Genocide Accountability Act, the first legislative result of the new subcommittee I worked with Senator Durbin to create within the Judiciary Committee on Human Rights and the Law.

I hope that the Senate will soon be considering a number of our other legislative initiatives. We have reported a court security bill, S.378; a bill to increase drug competition by giving the FTC authority to stop drug companies from paying other companies not to compete, S.316; a bill to establish a school loan program for those willing to serve as prosecutors and public defenders, S.442; and legislation to reauthorize the successful Byrne grant program for law enforcement, S.231. A number of additional items are not far behind, including a bill to reauthorize the COPS program, S.368; and a bill that Senators Sessions and Senator Landrieu cosponsored attacking fraud in disaster and emergency relief funding. I hope to see action on our bill against war profiteering, S.119, as well.

The new Congress is off to a strong start in restoring accountability, in revitalizing the checks and balances of our system, and in earning back the public’s trust in government that has eroded during a rubberstamp Congress. Much remains to be done but we have made meaningful progress in just 100 days.

You can watch excerpts at Rawstory. The sly smile on Leahy's face tells me that he thinks he has the administration's bad boys just where he wants them. I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats don't already have copies of some of those missing emails. This might be a good time for the second level guys to come clean. Maybe they can avoid spending time in the slammer like Nixon's loyal foot soldiers. They can bet big bucks that Karl, Dick and George aren't going to protect them. For the big three loyalty only goes one way.

There's more: "The Dog Ate My Homework." >>

Dear Alberto, On The Matter Of Monica Goodling,

Senator's Leahy and Whitehouse sent the following Letter To Alberto Gonzales

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

As you are aware, Monica Goodling has indicated that she will assert her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination before the Senate Judiciary Committee rather than testify. You must know that her testimony would be important to the Judiciary Committee, since you offered her as a Department witness and agreed in your meeting with Judiciary Committee Senators on March 8 that the Department would cooperate with the Committee in providing her testimony along with that of others.

In the ordinary course, the Committee would discuss this with your Department to determine the best course of action with respect to a witness who has asserted Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, so as not to unwittingly hinder a prosecution by the Department. While it is premature to presume that any criminal prosecution will result from this inquiry now, it is also premature to presume one will not. It therefore seems advisable to have discussions between the Committee and the Department regarding how to proceed with regard to Ms. Goodling. Our question to you is: Who do we talk to at the Department of Justice? The office of the Attorney General appears to be hopelessly conflicted.

We would appreciate hearing from you whether a special counsel is necessary for us to speak with, or how you suggest creating appropriate firewalls so that a non-conflicted person with appropriate knowledge and authority can have the customary discussions with the Committee regarding Ms. Goodling's testimony.

On a related matter, we understand that you initially ordered an investigation by the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and that a joint Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility investigation is now under way. Is Ms. Goodling cooperating with that investigation? It is our understanding that career Department employees are required to cooperate with OIG and OPR investigations.

We are told by the Department that despite Ms. Goodling's unwillingness to testify, she nonetheless remains on your payroll. Has it ever happened in the history of the
Department of Justice that an attorney has refused to cooperate with OIG or OPR or asserted Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and remained an employee of the Department? Please provide information regarding any precedent for these extraordinary circumstances.

We would appreciate hearing from you promptly on these matters.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY SHELDON WHITEHOUSE
Chairman United States Senator

Monica, they don't sound like meanies to me. They are asking politely.

There's more: "Dear Alberto, On The Matter Of Monica Goodling," >>

Senator Kyl Blocks Repeal of Correction To Patriot Act

For those who have been paying attention the President wants the power to appoint any of his friends to the position of US attorney without dealing with the pesky senate confirmation process. During the passage of the USA Patriot Act a Republican staffer snuck in a change to the law allowing the AG to permanently appoint US attorneys without Senate approval. Recently the AG used the new law to fire 9 US attorneys and to appoint their replacements without Senate confirmation. Some of the firings involved US attorneys who were involved in fighting Republican corruption. One of the others resulted in the appointment of one of Karl Rove's henchmen as US attorney in Arkansas. Any guesses why Rove would want one of his boys down in Little Rock during the run up to the 2008 election?

When Specter found out that giving away the Senate's confirmation power had been attributed to him, he was shocked. Apparently nobody told him about the change. It turned out that a staffer who fancied himself Senator inserted the language at the request of the Administration without telling his boss. Senator Feinstein recently sponsored a bill restoring the law to status quo ante. Well, it seems the administration has had its Senate waterboy, Senator Kyl, block the legislation. That resulted in an uproar on the Senate Floor this afternoon. Enjoy Senator Schumer's comments.

There's more: "Senator Kyl Blocks Repeal of Correction To Patriot Act" >>

Bond and Leahy should try again

When the Defense Authorization Bill for FY 2007 was being written, Senators Bond (R-MO) and Leahy (D-VT) added a provision that would have given the National Guard a seat at the table in the Pentagon decision making process. The provision would also have elevated the Guard chief to Four Star, and made the number 2 position at U.S. Northern Command a National Guard billet. “They have supported us in the global war on terror, and the National Guard has earned a promotion. It’s time the Guard had a seat at the table when plans are being made.” Bond argued at the time. Still, the provision was stripped.

The Defense Authorization Bill for 2008 is being written right now, and the Senators should try again. We ask too much of our citizen soldiers to continue to give them short shrift. Yesterday it was announced that the Pentagon has changed the guidelines under which the Guard and Reserves can be deployed. In the past, deployments of Guardsmen and Reservists were limited to 24 of 60 months. That limit has been eliminated and now they can be deployed for 24 months at a time.

If the Guard and Reserves are going to be relied on so heavily in the United States military missions, they deserve equal representation in the decision making process.

There's more: "Bond and Leahy should try again" >>

Something's Rotten in San Diego

Over at TPM(Muckraker), they're reporting that US Attorney Carole Lam (prosecutor of Duke Cunningham) has been asked by the White House to step down since she has failed to make smuggling and gun cases a top priority.
As the San Diego Union Tribune reports:

When she took over, Lam made it clear that she planned to focus less on low-level smuggling cases in favor of public corruption and white collar crime, which would mean fewer but more significant prosecutions.
...
But even some of Lam's legal opponents said the supposed reasons she is being forced out are perplexing.

"What do they want her to do, lock up Mexico?" said Mario Conte, former chief of Federal Defenders of San Diego Inc. Conte, now a professor at California Western School of Law in downtown San Diego, said every prosecutor walks a tightrope.

Quite possibly. But I think this quote gives us great insight as to why she was forced out [emphasis added]:

"She has shown a certain tunnel vision in her prosecutions and has exercised an appalling lack of discretion in terms of the individuals she has targeted for prosecution and the classes of crimes that she has chosen to direct her resources at," said criminal defense attorney Geoffrey C. Morrison, who represented a defendant in the City Hall corruption case prosecuted by Lam's office.

Lack of discretion? What an interesting turn of phrase. Are there individuals whom we should never scrutinize by virtue of their positions of authority? I wonder why failing to accord this "respect" to certain individuals might garner the White House's displeasure. Senator Feinstein pointed out that other U.S. Attorneys are being forced to step down for reasons that are not at all clear to the public at large:

"...we have no idea why this is happening. The Attorney General could have legitimate reasons for asking for specific resignations, or this could be motivated by political concerns or worse, derailing on-going investigations. Again, we just don’t know."

Senators Feinstein (Ca.), Leahy (Vt.), and Pryor (Ark.) have introduced legislation to return Congressional oversight to the appointment of U.S. Attorneys; this oversight was bypassed under the Patriot Act.

There's more: "Something's Rotten in San Diego" >>

Hello--I am the new kid in town.

Blue Girl has asked me to follow the doings of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees in the 110th congress.

The Senate Committee got off to a fast start yesterday with a background hearing on "Balancing Privacy and Security: The Privacy Implications of Government Data Mining Programs. "

The second witness, Jim Harper of the Cato Institute gave a very good summary of the issues involved in data mining in the fight on terror. It seems data mining is the worst of all possible worlds. It wastes a lot of resources creating false positives and every false positive is a potential source of problems for the poor American falsely targetted. According to Harper:

(D)ata mining is not, and cannot be, a useful tool in the anti-terror arsenal. The incidence of terrorism and terrorism planning is too low for there to be statistically sound modeling of terrorist activity.

Interesting. If that is the case, why do we mine data? This is a topic we will revisit during the coming congress.

The house judiciary committee doesn't have a hearing scheduled until next week. On 11/15/2006 - Representative Conyer and his collegues will consider "Legislation Cracking Down on Caller ID Spoofing." Not the same as data mining, but important to people who have been spoofed.

Now if I can just figure out how all this HTML stuff works.

There's more: "Hello--I am the new kid in town." >>