Balkinization: Angler and Barracuda

Angler and Barracuda

Marty Lederman

Interesting juxtaposition of lead stories today in the Post and the Times.

The Post begins its excerpts from Angler, Bart Gellman's book on Cheney that's to be published on Tuesday. Today's story is the beginning of an account of the unraveling of the Addington/Yoo NSA wiretapping program in late 2003 and early 2004. Who did Cheney's office endeavor to keep out of the loop on this most important anti-terrorism program? Only the Deputy Attorney General. And the President's National Security Advisor (Condi Rice) and her Deputy (Frances Townsend). And Deputy National Security Adviser Steven Hadley. And Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. And Homeland Security Adviser John Gordon. The NSA, which was running the program, obviously knew of its existence, but Cheney's Office refused to provide the NSA General Counsel and Inspector General the legal analysis on which it was predicated.

Meanwhile, in Juneau:

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.

* * * *

While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a “personal device” like a BlackBerry “would be confidential and not subject to subpoena.”

Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account “when there was significant state business.”

On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: “Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account.”

Mr. Bailey responded: “Whoops~!”

* * * *

The administration’s e-mail correspondence reveals a siege-like atmosphere. Top aides keep score, demean enemies and gloat over successes. Even some who helped engineer her rise have felt her wrath.

Sound familiar?

Posted 5:54 AM by Marty Lederman [link]

Comments:

Yeah, she sounds like every politician I've ever encountered. Freaky, that.

# posted by

Brett : 8:02 AM

Thank you very much for this information.

sohbet mirc
sesli sohbet
sohbet

# posted by

red : 9:08 AM

Brett, and anybody else out there who thinks cronyism and secrecy are uniform across the political spectrum, you need to get off your dead asses and do something instead of simply accepting it.

Here's the way it works. We had an AG, appointed by the elder Bush, who then ran for and was elected mayor of our city as a Democrat. His access to power was through schmoozing. He was no reformer, and the local Democratic power structure, which is reminiscent of Chicago, welcomed him as a traditional-style mayor.

His tenure as mayor was marked increasingly by replacement of existing heads of city departments by cronies, and by a tightly-held decision-making group.

This made the local party functionaries unhappy, obviously. In the next election, the mayor simply jumped to the GOP, and easily won re-election (although supposedly a Democratic stronghold, this is a blue-collar, beer-drinking one.)

His tenure became even more marked by cronyism and by secrecy. He pushed through a sports complex, which we will be paying for until after it has been torn down (using sales taxes.) He brought a sports team to town on a sweet-heart deal that made some of his friends a lot of money.

The local papers are afraid to tell the truth about his personal life, which does not bear inspection, because he has friends with huge accounts with them.

Now he's a senator (he got in through some very unusual circumstances), up for re-election. You wouldn't know from his ads that he's GOP, but he's getting help in the ad department from the GOP and from the Chamber of Commerce.

In summary, he's a sleazy politician, very much in the same model as Sarah Palin.

This could all have been avoided had his career been terminated after his first term as mayor.

Learn to recognize these people, and eliminate them from the political arena as soon as possible. We'll never get rid of them all, but everybody needs to do what we can.

# posted by

C2H50H : 11:26 AM

Heaven forfend!

Palin is politician with political foes who are apparently more than willing to smear her and leak her e-mails to a partisan rag like the NYT for a political hit piece. Tell me again why it is a mystery to you that Palin would want her e-mails to remain private from her foes?

What this article shows is that the NYT could not find anything even remotely amiss in the e-mails they "obtained" and instead they had to make up a Cheney secrecy meme to come up with more than a couple sentences for their hit piece.

And the managers of this rag wonder why it is going out of business for lack of interest.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:08 PM

Bart,

In addition to asserting nothing but an ad hominem argument (which I thought you considered contemptible) you err in saying nothing was amiss: the emails obtained by Steiner indicate that Palin lied about the scientist's conclusions.

# posted by

C2H50H : 1:43 PM

c2h50h said...

Bart, In addition to asserting nothing but an ad hominem argument (which I thought you considered contemptible) you err in saying nothing was amiss: the emails obtained by Steiner indicate that Palin lied about the scientist's conclusions.

Go read what Palin actually said:

This month, the secretary of the interior is expected to rule on whether polar bears should be listed under the Endangered Species Act. I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts.

...with the NYT misrepresentation:

Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects...

The NYT lied and Palin said nothing of the sort. Rather Palin said that she based her own decision on the scientific data presented in the review by state scientists. She makes no comment as to what decision those scientists would have made if the People had elected them as governor.

You would be well advised to double check each and every slander which is being thrown Palin's way before you accept them as fact.

BTW, it is not an ad hominem attack to observe correctly that the NYT is a demonstrated partisan lying rag.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:10 PM

Bart,

From Sarah Palin's Op-Ed piece in the NYT (January, 2008): "In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable futur"

This is demonstrably false, and the scientists said so.

And Bart, it is ad hominem to claim that what is said is false because of who said it, rather than independent facts.

# posted by

C2H50H : 2:23 PM

BTW, it is not an ad hominem attack to observe correctly that the NYT is a demonstrated partisan lying rag.

It most certainly is if you're trying to make a point with that opinion. Then again, there's that old saw, "The power of accurate observation is commonly called 'cynicism' by those who haven't got it."

As to Bart's other comments, it's apparent that he didn't even read the article(s).

# posted by

Eric : 2:37 PM

c2h50h said...

Bart, From Sarah Palin's Op-Ed piece in the NYT (January, 2008): "In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable futur"

This is demonstrably false, and the scientists said so.

How is this demonstrably false?

Palin offered the evidence upon which she is relying - the polar bear population is growing. The counter argument that the shrinking habitat threatens the bears with extinction does not appear to have much merit considering that the remaining habitat is sufficient to support population growth

The polar bear argument is not being offered out of any concern for the bears or their habitat, but rather as an abuse of the Endangered Species Act to leverage regulations on CO2 emissions which would never be enacted democratically.

I would join Sandy in calling for a change in the Constitution to address this bureaucratic "dictatorship" except for the fact that this abuse of power is already contrary to the Constitution as written and only permitted because the Courts rewrote the commerce clause.

And Bart, it is ad hominem to claim that what is said is false because of who said it, rather than independent facts.

I demonstrated how the NYT was lying in this case. The Times claimed that Palin misrepresented the opinions of her bureaucrats and she did no such thing. Rather, she simply made a decision with which her bureaucrats disagreed.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:02 PM

I believe the NY Times must have rounded up the entire dozen or so of Alaskans who disapprove of Governor Palin given that she now has an 86% approval rating, including 75% among Dems. Indeed, Palin is more popular among Dems in Alaska than Obama.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:33 PM

Why yes, Marty, it does sound familiar.

I'm sure some people accept the same tricks to hide public policy from the public, and endless attempts to circumvent the law, and putting loyalty above competence, that we've witnessed for eight years in the White House.

Me, I'd like change.

# posted by

jpk : 7:40 PM

Bart,

Had she said that the scientists had told her the polar bear would be in danger of extinction, but that she didn't believe them, it would have been asinine -- but truthful.

Instead, she claimed that science (in other words, the scientists) didn't indicate what scientists have been saying for some time, and that the emails show they told her.

IOW, she lied, and tried to cover up her falsification by preventing disclosure of the information upon which she supposedly had based her position. This is all too reminiscent of the method of the current administration.

Frankly, I don't think she'll have any ability to operate within a McCain administration. However, her office might provide a haven for people like Addington or Libby, who would operate effectively outside the law.

# posted by

C2H50H : 8:09 PM

c2h50h:

A lie is a false statement of fact which the speaker knows was false at the time. A difference of opinion is never a lie.

Palin had her opinion about the evidence and her bureaucrats had another. That does not make her statement of opinion: "[T]here is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future" a lie. Indeed, as I pointed out, Palin has the evidence of a growing and not a diminishing polar bear population on her side and has offered the superior argument from the evidence.

Furthermore, scientific evidence is not analogous with the opinions of credentialed scientists about what the evidence means. That is the worst kind of citation to authority logical fallacy. The evidence is the evidence and anyone can construct a valid argument supported by the evidence.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:47 PM

Bart,

You seem incapable of grasping that Palin claimed that science -- not some random facts here and there, as you keep dribbling in, but science, in the form of the opinions of scientists -- said something, and, in fact, as the emails she tried to hide demonstrated, the science said the opposite.

It is only an "appeal to authority" if, in fact, scientists who study climate change and its effect on wildlife were not authorities.

In fact, these scientists' opinions are authoritative, and an appeal to them is perfectly appropriate, while our opinion about what any of these facts mean is worth, precisely, squat.

I've tried several times to explain this to you, but it appears to be totally beyond my powers of explanation -- or perhaps the problem is with you.

In any case, I'm done here.

# posted by

C2H50H : 9:01 PM

Bart:
Indeed, as I pointed out, Palin has the evidence of a growing and not a diminishing polar bear population on her side and has offered the superior argument from the evidence.

Whatever. It's not like she's actually going to get elected.

Cheney and Addington, however, are a present threat.

# posted by

Eric : 9:02 PM

c2h50h said:

The Science = the facts that the polar bear population is growing while the sea winds are melting the ice pack.

The Opinions = Palin: A growing population means the bear population is not going extinct; Bureaucrats: The ice pack will keep shrinking may cause the bear to go extinct someday.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:29 AM

Bart,

Your last comment is just too egregious to let stand.

It's true that 2 sub-populations of polar bears appear to be on the increase -- out of 19. Some others appear to be stable -- as long as current sea-ice extents continue, which they do not seem to be doing.

Saying that their number is increasing is the worst kind of hyper-generalization, and indicates scientific idiocy.

Science is not cherry-picking the data you want to look at and hiding the data you used to come to your conclusions. Science is doing research and discussing it (i.e., "publishing") and letting the consensus of your peers come to a conclusion.

# posted by

C2H50H : 10:36 AM

"Bart" DePalma:

Palin is politician with political foes who are apparently more than willing to smear her and leak her e-mails to a partisan rag like the NYT for a political hit piece.

"If you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't worry."

But her official e-mails, covering what she's doing in a state capacity, are hardly a "private" matter (and that's why such are subject to FOIA requests).

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:53 PM

arne langsetmo said...

"Bart" DePalma: Palin is politician with political foes who are apparently more than willing to smear her and leak her e-mails to a partisan rag like the NYT for a political hit piece.

"If you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't worry."

Interesting take from one who thinks that the TSP is spying on him.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:09 PM

"Bart" DeClueless:

[Arne]: "If you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't worry."

Interesting take from one who thinks that the TSP is spying on him.

Clearly satire-impaired. Unfortunately, modern medicine hasn't found a cure for either that or rampant stoopidity. Sad, your fate, "Bart".

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 4:02 PM

I should also point out the second part that "Bart" ignored:

["Bart"]: Palin is politician with political foes who are apparently more than willing to smear her and leak her e-mails to a partisan rag like the NYT for a political hit piece.

[Arne]: "If you've done nothing wrong, you shouldn't worry."

[Arne]: But her official e-mails, covering what she's doing in a state capacity, are hardly a "private" matter (and that's why such are subject to FOIA requests).

As is well known, business records are subject to subpoena and not covered under Fourth Amendment protections.

And the FOIA says that people should be able to ask what the gummint is doing.

That "Bart" conflates that with gummint snooping of private conversations shows that he really doesn't understand this "law thing".

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 4:08 PM

Please don't feed the troll.

# posted by

Eric : 5:44 PM

Eric:

He posts whether or not we feed him. Really. I have long experience with this one.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 9:42 PM