Despite being married to uber peacenik Congressman, John Conyers (D-Iraq) and, this being the season of "Peace On Earth," there is this bit of news from the DNC's Associated Press:

Wife of Congressman Involved in Bar Fight

Fri Dec 23

The wife of Democratic U.S. Rep. John Conyers has been accused of punching a woman in the eye during a bar fight.

A spokesman for Monica Conyers, a city councilwoman-elect, confirmed Friday that she was involved in an altercation. But he said Conyers merely defended herself after being attacked by another woman.

The spokesman said Rebecca Mews became upset Tuesday during a birthday celebration for an attorney, who Mews says was her date. While Conyers was speaking with the man, Mews "came over and literally started spewing obscene names," and shoved Conyers, said Conyers' chief of staff, Sam Riddle.

"This woman was obviously drunk, and the councilwoman vigorously defended herself," he said.

Mews, who appeared on WDIV-TV on Thursday with a black eye, denied she was intoxicated. Mews said that when Conyers began speaking to her date with her back to her, she tapped her on the shoulder and said, "Pardon me."

"She turned around and began yelling at me," Mews said. "When I began yelling back at her, she punches me in my left eye several times," Mews said. "I never struck her. Never once did I hit her."

A message seeking comment was left Friday at a telephone listing for Mews.

Both women filed police reports. A message left with police Friday was not immediately returned.

Here is the pugilist, Madam Conyers, with her America hating peace loving husband, in happier times:

Here is an instructive letter from the Department Of Justice in response to the Democrats' latest ginned-up agit-prop about "spying":

U. S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs

December 22, 2005

The Honorable Pat Roberts
Chairman
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV
Vice Chairman
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Peter Hoekstra
Chairman
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Jane Harman
Ranking Minority Member
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairmen Roberts and Hoekstra. Vice Chairman Rockefeller, and Ranking Member Harman:

As you know, in response to unauthorized disclosures in the media, the President has described certain activities of the National Security Agency ("NSA") that he has authorized since shortly after September 11, 2001 . As described by the President, the NSA intercepts certain international communications into and out of the United States of people linked to al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. The purpose of these intercepts is to establish an early warning system to detect and prevent another catastrophic terrorist attack on the United States. The President has made clear that he will use his constitutional and statutory authorities to protect the Amer~can people from further terrorist attacks, and the NSA activities the President described are part of that effort. Leaders of the Congress were briefed on these activities more than a dozen times.

The purpose of this letter is to provide an additional brief summary of the legal authority supporting the NSA activities described by the President.

As an initial matter, I emphasize a few points. The President stated that these activities are crucial to our national security." The President further explained that "the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country." These critical national security activities remain classified. All United States laws and policies governing the protection and nondisclosure of national security information. including the information relating to the activities described by the President, remain in full force and effect. The unauthorized disclosure of classified information violates federal criminal law. The Government may provide further classified briefings to the Congress on these activities in an appropriate manner. Any such briefings will be conducted in a manner that will not endanger national security.

Under Article 11 of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1863) (stressing that if the Nation is invaded, "the President is not only authorized but hound to resist by force . . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority"); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19,27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman, J., concurring) ("[T]he Prize Cases. . . stand for the proposition that the President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific congressional authorization, and courts may not review the level of force selected."); id.at 40 (Tatel, J., concurring). The Congress recognized this constitutional authority in the preamble to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force ("AUMF") of September 18, 2001, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) ("[T]he President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."), and in the War Powers Resolution, see 50 U.S.C. 8 1541(c) ("The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities[] . . . [extend to] a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.").

This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States, as all federal appellate courts, including at least four circuits, to have addressed the issue have concluded. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 7 17, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 2002) ("[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority. . . ."). The Supreme Court has said that warrants are generally required in the context of purely domesticthreats. hut it expressly distinguished, foreignthreats. See United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972). As Justice Byron White recognized almost 40 years ago, Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 363-64 (1967) (White, J., concurring).

The President's constitutional authority to direct the NSA to conduct the activities he described is supplemented by statutory authority under the AUMF. The AUMF authorizes the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, . . . in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." § 2(a), The AUMF clearly contemplates action within the United States, See also id.pmbl. (the attacks of September 11 "render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad"). The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly "committed" the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States for months before those attacks. The reality of the September 11 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the AUMF. At least five Justices concluded that the AUMF authorized the President to detain a U.S. citizen in the United States because "detention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war" and is therefore included in the "necessary and appropriate force" authorized by the Congress. Id.at 518-19 (plurality opinion of O'Connor, J.); see id.at 587 (Thomas, J., dissenting). These five Justices concluded that the AUMF "clearly and unmistakably authorize[s]" the "fundamental incident[s] of waging war." Id.at 518-19 (plurality opinion); see id.at 587 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

Communications intelligence targeted at the enemy is a fundamental incident of the use of military force. Indeed, throughout history, signals intelligence has formed a critical part of waging war. In the Civil War, each side tapped the telegraph lines of the other. In the World Wars, the United States intercepted telegrams into and out of the country. The AUMF cannot be read to exclude this long-recognized and essential authority to conduct communications intelligence targeted at the enemy. We cannot fight a war blind. Because communications intelligence activities constitute, to use the language of Hamdi, a fundamental incident of waging war, the AUMF clearly and unmistakably authorizessuch activities directed against the communications of our enemy. Accordingly, the President's "authority is at its maximum." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring); see Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 668 (1981); cf: Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 585 (noting the absence of a statute "from which [the asserted authority] c[ould] be fairly implied").

The President's authorization of targeted electronic surveillance by the NSA is also consistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"). Section 2511(2)(f) of title 18 provides, relevant here, that the procedures of FISA and two chapters of title 18 "shall be the as exclusive means by which electronic surveillance… may be conducted." Section 109 of FISA, in turn, makes it unlawful to conduct electronic surveillance, "except as authorized by statute." 50 U.S.C. 1809(a)(1). Importantly, section 109's exception for electronic surveillance "authorized by statute" is broad, especially considered in the context of surrounding provisions. See18 U.S.C. § 2511(l) ("Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapterany person who –(a) intentionally intercepts . . . any wire, oral, or electronic communication[] . . . shall be punished . . . .") (emphasis added); id.§ 2511(2)(e) (providing a defense to liability to individuals "conduct[ing] electronic surveillance, . . . as authorized by that Act [FISA]") (emphasis added). By expressly and broadly excepting from its prohibition electronic surveillance undertaken "as authorized by statute," section 109 of FISA permits an exception to the "procedures" of FISA referred to in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) where authorized by another statute, even if the other authorizing statute does not specifically amend section 2511(2)(f). The AUMF satisfies section 109's requirement for statutory authorization of electronic surveillance, just as a majority of the Court in Hamdiconcluded that it satisfies the requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) that no U.S. citizen be detained by the United States "except pursuant to an Act of Congress." See Hamdi, 542

U.S. at 519 (explaining that "it is of no moment that the AUMF does not use specific language of detention"); see id.at 587 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Some might suggest that FISA could be read to require that a subsequent statutory authorization must come in the form of an amendment to FISA itself. But under established principles of statutory construction, the AUMF and FISA must be construed in harmony to avoid any potential conflict between FISA and the President's Article II authority as Commander in Chief. See, e.g., Zachydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001); INS v. St.Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 300 v. (2001). Accordingly. any ambiguity as to whether the AUMF is a statute that satisfies the requirements of FISA and allows electronic surveillance in the conflict with al Qaeda without complying with FISA procedures must be resolved in favor of a n interpretation that is consistent with the President's long-recognized authority.

The NSA activities described by the President are also consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the protection of civil liberties. The Fourth Amendment's "central requirement is one of reasonableness." Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326,330 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). For searches conducted in the course of ordinary criminal law enforcement, reasonableness generally requires securing a warrant. See Bd. of Educ, v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 828 (2002). Outside the ordinary criminal law enforcement context, however, the Supreme Court has, at times, dispensed with the warrant, instead adjudging the reasonableness of a search under the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118 (2001). In particular, the Supreme Court has long recognized that "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement," can justify departure from the usual warrant requirement. Vernonia School Dist. 471 v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995); see also City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 41-42 (2000) (striking down checkpoint where "primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing").

Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement. Foreign intelligence collection undertaken to prevent further devastating attacks on our Nation serves the highest government purpose through means other than traditional law enforcement. See In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 745; United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59, 72 (2d Cir. 1984) (recognizing that the Fourth Amendment implications of foreign intelligence surveillance are far different from ordinary wiretapping, because they are not principally used for criminal prosecution).

Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al Qaeda in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable. Reasonableness is generally determined by "balancing the nature of the intrusion on the individual's privacy against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." Earls, 536 U.S. at 829. There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the President. That must be balanced, however, against the Government's compelling interest in the security of the Nation. see, e.g., Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981) ("It is obvious and unarguable that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation.") (citation and quotation marks omitted). The fact that the NSA activities are reviewed and reauthorized approximately every 45 days to ensure that they continue to be necessary and appropriate further demonstrates the reasonableness of these activities.

As explained above. the President determined that it was necessary following September 11 to create an early warning detection system. FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required for the early warning detection system. In addition, any legislative change, other than the AUMF, that the President might have sought specifically to create such an early warning system would have been public and would have tipped off our enemies concerning our intelligence limitations and capabilities. Nevertheless, I want to stress that the United States makes full use of FISA to address the terrorist threat, and FISA has proven to be a very important tool, especially in longer-term investigations. In addition, the United States is constantly assessing all available legal options, taking full advantage of any developments in the law.

We hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

William E. Moschella
Assistant Attorney General

This is as true today as it was during World War One, when it became the slogan of their arch-rival, The New York Herald.

Typically, the editors of The Times are so proud of their ability to rise above such a parochial thing as patriotism that they have listed this as a great moment in their illustrious history:

New York Times Timeline

1918
September

The Times is widely denounced for an editorial praising an Austrian peace proposal that falls short of unconditional surrender. Adolph Ochs’s patriotism is questioned; The Herald begins a circulation drive with the slogan "Read an American Newspaper."

Of course it has long been known that The New York Times is an enemy of this country. But most date the start of their hatred of the US back to their boosterism for Communism in the early 1930s.

But apparently it was alive and kicking even before those halcyon days.

Here is a White House transcript of the press conference with US Attorney General, Gonzales and NSA Deputy Director, Hayden:

Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence

James S. Brady Briefing Room

8:30 A.M. EST

MR. McCLELLAN: Good morning, everybody. I've got with me the Attorney General and General Hayden here this morning to brief you on the legal issues surrounding the NSA authorization and take whatever questions you have for them on that. The Attorney General will open with some comments and then they'll be glad to take your questions.

And with that, I'll turn it over to General Gonzales.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Thanks, Scott.

The President confirmed the existence of a highly classified program on Saturday. The program remains highly classified; there are many operational aspects of the program that have still not been disclosed and we want to protect that because those aspects of the program are very, very important to protect the national security of this country. So I'm only going to be talking about the legal underpinnings for what has been disclosed by the President.

The President has authorized a program to engage in electronic surveillance of a particular kind, and this would be the intercepts of contents of communications where one of the — one party to the communication is outside the United States. And this is a very important point — people are running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American citizens calling their neighbors. Very, very important to understand that one party to the communication has to be outside the United States.

Another very important point to remember is that we have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda. We view these authorities as authorities to confront the enemy in which the United States is at war with — and that is al Qaeda and those who are supporting or affiliated with al Qaeda.

What we're trying to do is learn of communications, back and forth, from within the United States to overseas with members of al Qaeda. And that's what this program is about.

Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides — requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow — there is — unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.

Now, that — one might argue, now, wait a minute, there's nothing in the authorization to use force that specifically mentions electronic surveillance. Let me take you back to a case that the Supreme Court reviewed this past — in 2004, the Hamdi decision. As you remember, in that case, Mr. Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who was contesting his detention by the United States government. What he said was that there is a statute, he said, that specifically prohibits the detention of American citizens without permission, an act by Congress — and he's right, 18 USC 4001a requires that the United States government cannot detain an American citizen except by an act of Congress.

We took the position — the United States government took the position that Congress had authorized that detention in the authorization to use force, even though the authorization to use force never mentions the word "detention." And the Supreme Court, a plurality written by Justice O'Connor agreed. She said, it was clear and unmistakable that the Congress had authorized the detention of an American citizen captured on the battlefield as an enemy combatant for the remainder — the duration of the hostilities. So even though the authorization to use force did not mention the word, "detention," she felt that detention of enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield was a fundamental incident of waging war, and therefore, had been authorized by Congress when they used the words, "authorize the President to use all necessary and appropriate force."

For the same reason, we believe signals intelligence is even more a fundamental incident of war, and we believe has been authorized by the Congress. And even though signals intelligence is not mentioned in the authorization to use force, we believe that the Court would apply the same reasoning to recognize the authorization by Congress to engage in this kind of electronic surveillance.

I might also add that we also believe the President has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as Commander-in-Chief, to engage in this kind of activity. Signals intelligence has been a fundamental aspect of waging war since the Civil War, where we intercepted telegraphs, obviously, during the world wars, as we intercepted telegrams in and out of the United States. Signals intelligence is very important for the United States government to know what the enemy is doing, to know what the enemy is about to do. It is a fundamental incident of war, as Justice O'Connor talked about in the Hamdi decision. We believe that — and those two authorities exist to allow, permit the United States government to engage in this kind of surveillance.

The President, of course, is very concerned about the protection of civil liberties, and that's why we've got strict parameters, strict guidelines in place out at NSA to ensure that the program is operating in a way that is consistent with the President's directives. And, again, the authorization by the President is only to engage in surveillance of communications where one party is outside the United States, and where we have a reasonable basis to conclude that one of the parties of the communication is either a member of al Qaeda or affiliated with al Qaeda.

Mike, do you want to — have anything to add?

GENERAL HAYDEN: I'd just add, in terms of what we do globally with regard to signals intelligence, which is a critical part of defending the nation, there are probably no communications more important to what it is we're trying to do to defend the nation; no communication is more important for that purpose than those communications that involve al Qaeda, and one end of which is inside the homeland, one end of which is inside the United States. Our purpose here is to detect and prevent attacks. And the program in this regard has been successful.

Q General, are you able to say how many Americans were caught in this surveillance?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not — I can't get into the specific numbers because that information remains classified. Again, this is not a situation where — of domestic spying. To the extent that there is a moderate and heavy communication involving an American citizen, it would be a communication where the other end of the call is outside the United States and where we believe that either the American citizen or the person outside the United States is somehow affiliated with al Qaeda.

Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we — FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred.

The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology –

Q But it's been kind of retroactively, hasn't it?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: — since then. Pardon me?

Q It's been done retroactively before, hasn't it?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: What do you mean, "retroactively"?

Q You just go ahead and then you apply for the FISA clearance, because it's damn near automatic.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: If we — but there are standards that have to be met, obviously, and you're right, there is a procedure where we — an emergency procedure that allows us to make a decision to authorize — to utilize FISA, and then we go to the court and get confirmation of that authority.

But, again, FISA is very important in the war on terror, but it doesn't provide the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of threat.

Q But what — go ahead.

GENERAL HAYDEN: Let me just add to the response to the last question. As the Attorney General says, FISA is very important, we make full use of FISA. But if you picture what FISA was designed to do, FISA is designed to handle the needs in the nation in two broad categories: there's a law enforcement aspect of it; and the other aspect is the continued collection of foreign intelligence. I don't think anyone could claim that FISA was envisaged as a tool to cover armed enemy combatants in preparation for attacks inside the United States. And that's what this authorization under the President is designed to help us do.

Q Have you identified armed enemy combatants, through this program, in the United States?

GENERAL HAYDEN: This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States.

Q General Hayden, I know you're not going to talk about specifics about that, and you say it's been successful. But would it have been as successful — can you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or there was an imminent attack or you got information through this that you could not have gotten through going to the court?

GENERAL HAYDEN: I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available.

Q Through the court? Because of the speed that you got it?

GENERAL HAYDEN: Yes, because of the speed, because of the procedures, because of the processes and requirements set up in the FISA process, I can say unequivocally that we have used this program in lieu of that and this program has been successful.

Q But one of the things that concerns people is the slippery slope. If you said you absolutely need this program, you have to do it quickly — then if you have someone you suspect being a member of al Qaeda, and they're in the United States, and there is a phone call between two people in the United States, why not use that, then, if it's so important? Why not go that route? Why not go further?

GENERAL HAYDEN: Across the board, there is a judgment that we all have to make — and I made this speech a day or two after 9/11 to the NSA workforce — I said, free peoples always have to judge where they want to be on that spectrum between security and liberty; that there will be great pressures on us after those attacks to move our national banner down in the direction of security. What I said to the NSA workforce is, our job is to keep Americans free by making Americans feel safe again. That's been the mission of the National Security Agency since the day after the attack, is when I talked — two days after the attack is when I said that to the workforce.

There's always a balancing between security and liberty. We understand that this is a more — I'll use the word "aggressive" program than would be traditionally available under FISA. It is also less intrusive. It deals only with international calls. It is generally for far shorter periods of time. And it is not designed to collect reams of intelligence, but to detect and warn and prevent about attacks. And, therefore, that's where we've decided to draw that balance between security and liberty.

Q Gentlemen, can you say when Congress was first briefed, who was included in that, and will there be a leaks investigation?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well of course, we're not going to — we don't talk about — we try not to talk about investigations. As to whether or not there will be a leak investigation, as the President indicated, this is really hurting national security, this has really hurt our country, and we are concerned that a very valuable tool has been compromised. As to whether or not there will be a leak investigation, we'll just have to wait and see.

And your first question was?

Q When was Congress first briefed –

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not going to — I'm not going to talk about — I'll let others talk about when Congress was first briefed. What I can say is, as the President indicated on Saturday, there have been numerous briefings with certain key members of Congress. Obviously, some members have come out since the revelations on Saturday, saying that they hadn't been briefed. This is a very classified program. It is probably the most classified program that exists in the United States government, because the tools are so valuable, and therefore, decisions were made to brief only key members of Congress. We have begun the process now of reaching out to other members of Congress. I met last night, for example, with Chairman Specter and other members of Congress to talk about the legal aspects of this program.

And so we are engaged in a dialogue now to talk with Congress, but also — but we're still mindful of the fact that still — this is still a very highly classified program, and there are still limits about what we can say today, even to certain members of Congress.

Q General, what's really compromised by the public knowledge of this program? Don't you assume that the other side thinks we're listening to them? I mean, come on.

GENERAL HAYDEN: The fact that this program has been successful is proof to me that what you claim to be an assumption is certainly not universal. The more we discuss it, the more we put it in the face of those who would do us harm, the more they will respond to this and protect their communications and make it more difficult for us to defend the nation.

Q Mr. Attorney General –

Q — became public, have you seen any evidence in a change in the tactics or –

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: We're not going to comment on that kind of operational aspect.

Q You say this has really hurt the American people. Is that based only on your feeling about it, or is there some empirical evidence to back that up, even if you can't –

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I think the existence of this program, the confirmation of the — I mean, the fact that this program exists, in my judgment, has compromised national security, as the President indicated on Saturday.

Q I'd like to ask you, what are the constitutional limits on this power that you see laid out in the statute and in your inherent constitutional war power? And what's to prevent you from just listening to everyone's conversation and trying to find the word "bomb," or something like that?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, that's a good question. This was a question that was raised in some of my discussions last night with members of Congress. The President has not authorized — has not authorized blanket surveillance of communications here in the United States. He's been very clear about the kind of surveillance that we're going to engage in. And that surveillance is tied with our conflict with al Qaeda.

You know, we feel comfortable that this surveillance is consistent with requirements of the 4th Amendment. The touchstone of the 4th Amendment is reasonableness, and the Supreme Court has long held that there are exceptions to the warrant requirement in — when special needs outside the law enforcement arena. And we think that that standard has been met here. When you're talking about communications involving al Qaeda, when you — obviously there are significant privacy interests implicated here, but we think that those privacy interests have been addressed; when you think about the fact that this is an authorization that's ongoing, it's not a permanent authorization, it has to be reevaluated from time to time. There are additional safeguards that have been in place — that have been imposed out at NSA, and we believe that it is a reasonable application of these authorities.

Q Mr. Attorney General, haven't you stretched –

Q — adequate because of technological advances? Wouldn't you do the country a better service to address that issue and fix it, instead of doing a backdoor approach –

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the past — certain members of Congress — as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible.

Q If this is not backdoor, is this at least a judgment call? Can you see why other people would look at it and say, well, no, we don't see it that way?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I think some of the concern is because people had not been briefed; they don't understand the specifics of the program, they don't understand the strict safeguards within the program. And I haven't had a discussion — an opportunity to have a discussion with them about our legal analysis. So, obviously, we're in that process now. Part of the reason for this press brief today is to have you help us educate the American people and the American Congress about what we're doing and the legal basis for what we're doing.

Q Al, you talk about the successes and the critical intercepts of the program. Have there also been cases in which after listening in or intercepting, you realize you had the wrong guy and you listened to what you shouldn't have?

GENERAL HAYDEN: That's why I mentioned earlier that the program is less intrusive. It deals only with international calls. The time period in which we would conduct our work is much shorter, in general, overall, than it would be under FISA. And one of the true purposes of this is to be very agile, as you described.

If this particular line of logic, this reasoning that took us to this place proves to be inaccurate, we move off of it right away.

Q Are there cases in which –

GENERAL HAYDEN: Yes, of course.

Q Can you give us some idea of percentage, or how often you get it right and how often you get it wrong?

GENERAL HAYDEN: No, it would be very — no, I cannot, without getting into the operational details. I'm sorry.

Q But there are cases where you wind up listening in where you realize you shouldn't have?

GENERAL HAYDEN: There are cases like we do with regard to the global SIGIN system — you have reasons to go after particular activities, particular communications. There's a logic; there is a standard as to why you would go after that, not just in a legal sense, which is very powerful, but in a practical sense. We can't waste resources on targets that simply don't provide valuable information. And when we decide that is the case — and in this program, the standards, in terms of re-evaluating whether or not this coverage is worthwhile at all, are measured in days and weeks.

Q Would someone in a case in which you got it wrong have a cause of action against the government?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That is something I'm not going to answer, Ken.

Q I wanted to ask you a question. Do you think the government has the right to break the law?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Absolutely not. I don't believe anyone is above the law.

Q You have stretched this resolution for war into giving you carte blanche to do anything you want to do.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, one might make that same argument in connection with detention of American citizens, which is far more intrusive than listening into a conversation. There may be some members of Congress who might say, we never –

Q That's your interpretation. That isn't Congress' interpretation.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I'm just giving you the analysis –

Q You're never supposed to spy on Americans.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm just giving the analysis used by Justice O'Connor — and she said clearly and unmistakenly the Congress authorized the President of the United States to detain an American citizen, even though the authorization to use force never mentions the word "detention" –

Q — into wiretapping everybody and listening in on –

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: This is not about wiretapping everyone. This is a very concentrated, very limited program focused at gaining information about our enemy.

Q Now that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, do you expect your legal analysis to be tested in the courts?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not going to, you know, try to guess as to what's going to happen about that. We're going to continue to try to educate the American people and the American Congress about what we're doing and the basis — why we believe that the President has the authority to engage in this kind of conduct.

Q Because there are some very smart legal minds who clearly think a law has been broken here.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I think that they may be making or offering up those opinions or assumptions based on very limited information. They don't have all the information about the program. I think they probably don't have the information about our legal analysis.

Q Judge Gonzales, will you release then, for the reasons you're saying now, the declassified versions of the legal rationale for this from OLC? And if not, why not? To assure the American public that this was done with the legal authority that you state.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: We're engaged now in a process of educating the American people, again, and educating the Congress. We'll make the appropriate evaluation at the appropriate time as to whether or not additional information needs to be provided to the Congress or the American people.

Q You declassified OLC opinions before, after the torture — why not do that here to show, yes, we went through a process?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not confirming the existence of opinions or the non-existence of opinions. I've offered up today our legal analysis of the authorities of this President.

Q Sir, can you explain, please, the specific inadequacies in FISA that have prevented you from sort of going through the normal channels?

GENERAL HAYDEN: One, the whole key here is agility. And let me re-trace some grounds I tried to suggest earlier. FISA was built for persistence. FISA was built for long-term coverage against known agents of an enemy power. And the purpose involved in each of those — in those cases was either for a long-term law enforcement purpose or a long-term intelligence purpose.

This program isn't for that. This is to detect and prevent. And here the key is not so much persistence as it is agility. It's a quicker trigger. It's a subtly softer trigger. And the intrusion into privacy — the intrusion into privacy is significantly less. It's only international calls. The period of time in which we do this is, in most cases, far less than that which would be gained by getting a court order. And our purpose here, our sole purpose is to detect and prevent.

Again, I make the point, what we are talking about here are communications we have every reason to believe are al Qaeda communications, one end of which is in the United States. And I don't think any of us would want any inefficiencies in our coverage of those kinds of communications, above all. And that's what this program allows us to do — it allows us to be as agile as operationally required to cover these targets.

Q But how does FISA –

GENERAL HAYDEN: FISA involves the process — FISA involves marshaling arguments; FISA involves looping paperwork around, even in the case of emergency authorizations from the Attorney General. And beyond that, it's a little — it's difficult for me to get into further discussions as to why this is more optimized under this process without, frankly, revealing too much about what it is we do and why and how we do it.

Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be — that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that — and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

Q And who determined that these targets were al Qaeda? Did you wiretap them?

GENERAL HAYDEN: The judgment is made by the operational work force at the National Security Agency using the information available to them at the time, and the standard that they apply — and it's a two-person standard that must be signed off by a shift supervisor, and carefully recorded as to what created the operational imperative to cover any target, but particularly with regard to those inside the United States.

Q So a shift supervisor is now making decisions that a FISA judge would normally make? I just want to make sure I understand. Is that what you're saying?

GENERAL HAYDEN: What we're trying to do is to use the approach we have used globally against al Qaeda, the operational necessity to cover targets. And the reason I emphasize that this is done at the operational level is to remove any question in your mind that this is in any way politically influenced. This is done to chase those who would do harm to the United States.

Q Building on that, during –

Q Thank you, General. Roughly when did those conversations occur with members of Congress?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I'm not going to get into the specifics of when those conversations occurred, but they have occurred.

Q May I just ask you if they were recently or if they were when you began making these exceptions?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: They weren't recently.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President indicated that those — the weeks after September 11th.

Q What was the date, though, of the first executive order? Can you give us that?

GENERAL HAYDEN: If I could just, before you ask that question, just add — these actions that I described taking place at the operational level — and I believe that a very important point to be made — have intense oversight by the NSA Inspector General, by the NSA General Counsel, and by officials of the Justice Department who routinely look into this process and verify that the standards set out by the President are being followed.

Q Can you absolutely assure us that all of the communications intercepted –

Q Have you said that you — (inaudible) — anything about this program with your international partners — with the partners probably in the territories of which you intercept those communications?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I'm not aware of discussions with other countries, but that doesn't mean that they haven't occurred. I simply have no personal knowledge of that.

Q Also, is it only al Qaeda, or maybe some other terrorist groups?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: Again, with respect to what the President discussed on Saturday, this program — it is tied to communications where we believe one of the parties is affiliated with al Qaeda or part of an organization or group that is supportive of al Qaeda.

Q Sir, during his confirmation hearings, it came out that now-Ambassador Bolton had sought and obtained NSA intercepts of conversations between American citizens and others. Who gets the information from this program; how do you guarantee that it doesn't get too widely spread inside the government, and used for other purposes?

Q And is it destroyed afterwards?

GENERAL HAYDEN: We report this information the way we report any other information collected by the National Security Agency. And the phrase you're talking about is called minimization of U.S. identities. The same minimalizationist standards apply across the board, including for this program. To make this very clear — U.S. identities are minimized in all of NSA's activities, unless, of course, the U.S. identity is essential to understand the inherent intelligence value of the intelligence report. And that's the standard that's used.

Q General, when you discussed the emergency powers, you said, agility is critical here. And in the case of the emergency powers, as I understand it, you can go in, do whatever you need to do, and within 72 hours just report it after the fact. And as you say, these may not even last very long at all. What would be the difficulty in setting up a paperwork system in which the logs that you say you have the shift supervisors record are simply sent to a judge after the fact? If the judge says that this is not legitimate, by that time probably your intercept is over, wouldn't that be correct?

GENERAL HAYDEN: What you're talking about now are efficiencies. What you're asking me is, can we do this program as efficiently using the one avenue provided to us by the FISA Act, as opposed to the avenue provided to us by subsequent legislation and the President's authorization.

Our operational judgment, given the threat to the nation that the difference in the operational efficiencies between those two sets of authorities are such that we can provide greater protection for the nation operating under this authorization.

Q But while you're getting an additional efficiency, you're also operating outside of an existing law. If the law would allow you to stay within the law and be slightly less efficient, would that be –

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I guess I disagree with that characterization. I think that this electronic surveillance is within the law, has been authorized. I mean, that is our position. We're only required to achieve a court order through FISA if we don't have authorization otherwise by the Congress, and we think that that has occurred in this particular case.

Q Can you just give us one assurance before you go, General?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: It depends on what it is. (Laughter.)

Q Can you assure us that all of these intercepts had an international component and that at no time were any of the intercepts purely domestic?

GENERAL HAYDEN: The authorization given to NSA by the President requires that one end of these communications has to be outside the United States. I can assure you, by the physics of the intercept, by how we actually conduct our activities, that one end of these communications are always outside the United States of America.

END 9:02 A.M. EST

Notice the conspicuous absence of any intelligent questions from the reporters. They simply don't know what they are talking about.

Not that there is anything new about that.

Almost immediately after the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, President Jimmy "the Saint" Carter issued Executive Order #12139:

Foreign Intelligence Electronic Surveillance

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section 103 of that Act to obtain orders for electronic surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or defense, is designated to make the certifications required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.
(b) Secretary of Defense.
(c) Director of Central Intelligence.
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(e) Deputy Secretary of State.
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. [Deleted]

1-105. [Deleted]

[Secs. 1-104 and 1-105 amended Executive Order 12036 of Jan. 24, 1978, which was revoked by Executive Order 12333 of Dec. 4, 1981.]

Jimmy Carter
1978

Once more, with feeling:

[T]he Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

Again, none of this is news, except to the New York Times. And we all know why they are pretending it’s new to them.

Somehow the geeky Wired News managed to scoop the vaunted New York Times by more than four years:

Bush Submits His Laws for War

By Declan McCullagh
10:15 AM Sep. 20, 2001 PT

WASHINGTON — President Bush sent his anti-terrorism bill to Congress late Wednesday, launching an emotional debate that will force U.S. politicians to choose between continued freedom for Americans or greater security.

Created in response to last week's bloody attacks, the draft "Mobilization Against Terrorism Act" (MATA) rewrites laws dealing with wiretapping, eavesdropping and immigration. The draft, intended to increase prosecutors' courtroom authority, also unleashes the government's Echelon and Carnivore spy systems.

"We will call upon the Congress of the United States to enact these important anti-terrorism measures," Attorney General John Ashcroft said this week. "We need these tools to fight the terrorism threat which exists in the United States, and we must meet that growing threat."

Although Ashcroft has said he hopes Congress will approve MATA by Saturday, Capitol Hill appears to be taking a more cautious approach. The House Judiciary committee has pledged a speedy but careful consideration, and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) has his own legislation he'll highlight at a hearing next Tuesday.

At a press conference Thursday in Washington, scores of organizations from across the political spectrum urged politicians to tread carefully and protect civil liberties during wartime. The In Defense of Freedom coalition says it hopes to prevent a repetition of earlier wars that heralded greater government powers and sharply curtailed freedoms.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, interfered with freedom of speech and of the press and ordered that suspected political criminals be tried before military tribunals. After declaring war in 1917, Congress banned using the U.S. mail to send any material urging "treason, insurrection or forcible resistance to any law."

President Wilson asked Congress to go even further: His draft of the Espionage Act included a $10,000 fine and 10 years imprisonment for anyone publishing information that could be useful to the enemy. The House of Representatives narrowly defeated it by a vote of 184-144.

This is the inevitable result of war: In national emergencies, even in liberal democracies, the uneasy relationship between freedom and order edges toward greater government power and control.

"There is no reason to think that future wartime presidents will act differently from Lincoln, Wilson or Roosevelt, or that future justices of the Supreme Court will decide questions differently from their predecessors," William Rehnquist, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote in a book published in 1998.

"It is neither desirable nor is it remotely likely that civil liberty will occupy as favored a position in wartime as it does in peacetime," Rehnquist wrote in All the Laws But One.

This time, there seems to be little interest in enacting laws against free expression — but the draft version of MATA would curtail privacy in hopes of thwarting future terrorist attacks. It says:

Police wiretap powers would be expanded, and Carnivore's utility increased. Any U.S. attorney or state attorney general could order the installation of the FBI's Carnivore Net-surveillance system in emergency situations without obtaining a court order first.

Voicemail messages would be easier for law enforcement investigators to obtain. A search warrant would be required, instead of a wiretap order that brings with it a higher level of court scrutiny.

Wiretapping would become easier. Currently, police are required to perform "normal investigative procedures" before tapping, a requirement that would no longer apply.

Echelon, the National Security Agency's shadowy data collection system operated in conjunction with friendly nations, could be used against Americans. Information gathered from Echelon and other electronic surveillance by foreign governments could be used against Americans "even if the collection would have violated the Fourth Amendment," according to the Justice Department's analysis of MATA.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a law that created a secret court to approve spy investigations, would be broadened and made more powerful. Searches and surveillance under FISA would become permissible for one year, instead of the current limit of 45 to 90 days.

Using this new version of FISA, prosecutors could look through the records of any business, credit card company or Internet provider with an "administrative subpoena" that does not require a judge's approval.

A non-U.S. citizen suspected of being a terrorist could be detained immediately by federal authorities without a court order.

The statute of limitations for terrorism-related crimes would be eliminated.

Nobody would be able to possess certain chemicals or biological agents unless they can prove they have a "peaceful purpose" for doing so.

State bar associations' ethics rules — that may limit the ability of Justice Department attorneys to approve undercover investigations — would no longer apply.

DNA samples would be taken from all convicted felons.

In a statement, the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation said that this "broad legislation would radically tip the United States' system of checks and balances, giving the government unprecedented authority to surveil American citizens with little judicial or other oversight."

The American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday: "Under the proposed legislation, legal and non-legal immigrants alike would be denied a hearing or any way to contest the accusations against them. This is an unprecedented move inconsistent with the pledge of our leaders not to respond to the terrorist attacks in a way that degrades our system of justice."

And low and behold, those jackbooted fascists in the Bush regime even sent out a press release — which I guess the New York Times deemed unworthy of their attention at the time:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AG

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 (202) 616-2777

TDD (202) 514-1888

WWW.USDOJ.GOV

ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT OUTLINES

MOBILIZATION AGAINST TERRORISM ACT

WASHINGTON, D.C. Attorney General John Ashcroft today presented the Mobilization Against Terrorism Act to Congress. Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft outlined the comprehensive legislative initiative which will redefine the antiterrorism effort while protecting civil liberties. The purpose of the legislation is to provide the President and the Department of Justice with the tools and resources necessary to disrupt, weaken, thwart, and eliminate the infrastructure of terrorist organizations, to prevent or thwart terrorist attacks, and to punish perpetrators of terrorist acts.

"The danger that darkened the United States of America and the civilized world on September 11 did not pass with the atrocities committed that day," said Ashcroft. "It requires that we provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to identify, dismantle, disrupt and punish terrorist organizations before they strike again. Terrorism is a clear and present danger to American's today."

The proposed legislation seeks to combat terrorist activity on several fronts. Title I enhances the Department's capacity to gather intelligence necessary to combat terrorist organizations who increasingly employ sophisticated modes of global communications. Existing wiretap authority and procedures have not kept pace with the development of modern technology or the mode of operations of international terrorist organizations. Since current wiretap authority is often restricted to specific property as opposed to allowing law enforcement to follow suspects, current authority is inadequate for investigative personnel to monitor terrorist agents and associates. These proposals update the law to the technology. Terrorist offenses necessitate and justify comprehensive intelligence gathering.

Title II enhances the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to detain and remove suspected terrorists by expanding the definition of terrorists to include those who lend support to terrorist organizations. The ability of terrorists to enter the United States and operate within the country is the obvious prerequisite to their capacity to inflict damage on citizens and facilities. These proposals protect the integrity of the United States borders without sacrificing the ability to welcome law-abiding visitors and legal immigrants.

Title III proposes changes to enhance prosecutors' ability to disable terrorists organizations through the legal process. The proposal amends current law to encourage investigation and prosecution prior to successful completion of a devastating terrorist attack. Terrorism should be considered no less than murder and the elimination of the statute of limitations on terrorist acts is reflective of these sentiments. In addition, this legislation provides for alternative maximum sentences, up to life, for the commission of terrorist acts, giving judges the ability to punish terrorists commensurate to their crimes. A number of other proposals are designed to punish or deter those who would assist terrorists and their organizations through concealment of their activities or their members. The lending of support that works to further terrorist organizations and to perpetuate terrorist attacks is expressly criminalized. In these specific changes to the law of crimes and criminal procedure, the constitutional rights of the accused are respected.

Title IV aims at the financial infrastructure of terrorist organizations whose sophisticated operations require substantial financial resources. Often such resources are provided by those not directly responsible for terrorist acts. These proposals will cripple the capacity of terrorist organizations to finance their illegal activities through criminal and civil forfeiture of resources. In addition, criminal liability is specifically imposed on those who knowingly engage in financial transactions involving the proceeds of these acts.

Title V authorizes emergency operations in response to the September 11 attacks and assists the Attorney General in providing support and relief to the victims. These proposals provide the Attorney General greater discretion and authority to disburse funds with regard to rewards to be offered in connection with crimes of terrorism.

So the obvious question becomes, why did our one party media decide to trot this story out again? You may well ask why these same "watchdogs" thought it was important to regurgitate the "CIA prisons" stories that were first reported last May.

But you know why. The DNC/MSM cannot allow the good news coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan to be reported.

They have to throw up something to keep their defeat America agenda on-track. That is job number one.

Speaking of media bias, compare and contrast these two reports on opening of the Afghanistan Parliament.

The first is from Communist controlled Xinhua:

Afghanistan parliament inaugurated amid tight security

KABUL, Dec. 19 (Xinhuanet) — Afghan president Hamid Karzai formally inaugurated the maiden session of the country’s first-ever parliament amid tight security here on Monday.

In his opening remarks, the President described it as a historic day and congratulated to the war-weary Afghans.

Convened in a renovated parliament house, the president urged the legislators to work for the betterment of the people of their war-battered land.

Majority of the 351 members of the two-chamber house are the former foes who fought against each other for power and were involved in the past 25 years of war, civil strife and imposing Taliban’s strict and authoritarian rule in major parts of the country.

A number of foreign delegates including US Vice President Deck Cheney have attended the parliament session to represent their governments.

As a precautionary measure, all the roads leading to the parliament house as well as important government building have been closed and the vehicles entering the city are thoroughly checked.

Afghan troops and police backed by the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the US-dominated coalition forces stationed in sensitive areas in the city besides patrollingthe streets to prevent any untoward incident.

Remnants of the former Taliban regime who vowed to oust the government of President Karzai and evict foreign troops by Jihad or holy war have threatened to sabotage the parliament procession.

As part of their threat, the militants on Friday committed a suicide attack on the ISAF troops near the parliament building killing self and wounding two passers by.

Six persons including three policemen have been killed in the latest wave of Taliban attacks since early weekend.

Taliban-led insurgency has claimed the lives of over 1,500 people including some 80 American soldiers since beginning this year.

And now, from the DNC controlled Associated Press:

Afghanistan’s Elected Parliament Convenes
By ERIC TALMADGE
Associated Press Writer
Dec 19, 1:11 AM EST

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Afghanistan’s first democratically elected parliament in more than three decades convened Monday, but there were concerns about whether it would be a constructive political force.

More than half of the new lawmakers are regional strongmen, and fears are high that they will block efforts to reform government and bring to justice those responsible for years of bloodshed.

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney flew in to attend the opening session, which began with a reading from the Koran.

Afghanistan has had no elected national assembly since 1973, when coups and a Soviet invasion plunged the country into decades of chaos that left more than 1 million people dead. Civil war raged in the early 1990s, followed by the nightmarish rule of the Taliban.

U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in 2001 after the regime refused to stop sheltering Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network in wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Afghans voted for the 249-seat lower house of parliament in September. They also elected provincial councils that then chose two-thirds of the 102-seat upper chamber. President Hamid Karzai appointed the remaining 34.

The composition of the National Assembly is an eclectic mix of warlords, ethnic groups, rival factions and, for the first time, women.

After Monday’s largely ceremonial opening session, security and stability were expected to be the major issues for the lawmakers in the weeks ahead. The exact length of the session hadn’t been determined, however.

Though the inauguration of the assembly formally concludes the political transition process agreed on by Afghan factions under U.N. auspices in December 2001, the country continues to teeter on the verge of chaos.

Some 20,000 U.S. troops are deployed here, along with thousands of mostly European peacekeepers. But violence is rife in the country’s south, where remnants of the Taliban are waging an insurgency marked by near daily killings and bombings.

Just days before parliament was to open, a suicide bomber blew himself up in a car not far from the assembly building, slightly damaging a Norwegian peacekeeping vehicle.

The country’s economy also continues to rely heavily on the trade in illicit drugs – a threat NATO’s top operational commander, U.S. Gen. James L. Jones, has suggested is more serious than the Taliban insurgency.

Opium production has boomed since the fall of the Taliban and Afghanistan is now source of 80 percent of the world’s heroin.

The makeup of the assembly itself has cast further doubt on whether it will be a positive political force.

Among those in the parliament with bloody pasts are Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, a powerful militia leader accused of war crimes by New York-based Human Rights Watch, and Abdul Salaam Rocketi, a former Taliban commander who has since reconciled with the government.

Another winner was the former Taliban leader who oversaw the destruction of two massive 1,500-year-old Buddha statues during the fundamentalists’ reign.

"The international community will try to portray the opening of parliament as a triumph," said Sam Zia-Zarifi, Asia research director at the New York-based Human Rights Watch. "But many Afghans are worried about a parliament dominated by human rights abusers."

One former militia commander who won election wasn’t at the opening session – he was shot dead earlier this month. Eight parliamentary candidates were killed in the runup to the September polls.

And here I was thinking the opening of the Afghani Parliament was glorious news. How naive of me.

According to the Solons of the DNC/AP, the war in Afghanistan was just done for the benefit of warlords and drug dealers. And there is absolutely nothing good to come of elections and representative government.

If you’re not one of the three or four dozen people who subscribe to the Washington Times you might have missed this bit of news:

Sunnis ready to cooperate with U.S.

By Paul Martin

December 18, 2005

AMMAN, Jordan — Key Sunni Muslim leaders in Iraq’s violent Anbar province have concluded that their interests lie in cooperating with the United States, and they are seeking to extend a temporary truce honored by most insurgent groups for last week’s elections.

But at the same time, they are demanding specific steps by the U.S. military, including a reduction in military raids and an increase in development projects for their vast desert province that stretches from the edge of Baghdad to the Syrian and Jordanian borders.

Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of a prominent Sunni bloc, confirmed yesterday that insurgent groups had prevented violence from interfering with Thursday’s election for a 275-seat parliament.

His comments yesterday on a cease-fire deal — first reported in The Washington Times on the day Iraqis voted — provided the first public explanation for the sharp drop in violence last week.

"The resistance announced it would protect polling stations and would not allow a single group to attack them, and it respected its promise.

"We thank them in the name of the Iraqi Accordance Front," Mr. al-Dulaimi told reporters in Baghdad, referring to the electoral bloc he leads.

The truce resulted from weeks of negotiations between U.S. officials and insurgents that have been recently labeled by President Bush as "rejectionists."

Mr. Bush also referred to other insurgent troops as "terrorists" and "Saddamists," with whom U.S. officials in Baghdad say they will not meet.

A prominent Sunni religious leader in Anbar province, Sheik Abed al-Latif Hemaiym, told The Times in an interview in Amman that Sunnis were prepared to work with the Americans.

"We now believe we must get on good terms with the Americans," Sheik Hemaiym said. "As Arab Sunnis, we believe that within this hot area of Iraq, facing challenges from neighboring nations who want to swallow us, especially the Iranians, we feel we have no alternative."

The willingness of U.S. officials to talk directly with many, if not most, insurgents marked a huge change from American thinking at the onset of the war.

At the time, U.S. military planners anticipated a long-term military relationship with Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, with the possibility of Iraq hosting American forces permanently.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday said "the time is coming" for U.S. forces to leave Iraq, but she has declined to give a deadline.

"For a proud people like the Iraqis, nobody wants to have foreign forces on your soil," Miss Rice said in an interview with the Associated Press.

"They want to take responsibility for their own future. I think that’s a healthy thing," she said.

Despite the truce, a number of small attacks occurred before, during and after the election. But the week was notable for the absence of any spectacular bombings.

Al Qaeda was never part of the truce, and yesterday it reportedly threatened to continue its campaign of terrorism.

"We say to our [Sunni] brothers: do not be fooled by what you have heard of the propaganda from the crusaders and their footmen," said an Internet statement from Al Qaeda in Iraq.

"The coming days will show you the fate of this ‘democratic marriage’ and the marriage of prostitution that it celebrated," said the statement on a frequently used terrorist Web site.

The group, led by Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi, also said it did not halt attacks during last week. 

I guess Mr al-Dulaimi doesn’t read the New York Times or the Associated Press.

Our one party media drops any last shred of pretense about wanting us to lose the war in Iraq. From the Democrat Party's organ, the Associated Press:

Bush Drops Rosy Iraq Scenarios

By RON FOURNIER
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – No more rosy scenarios. After watching his credibility and approval ratings crumble over the course of 2005, President Bush completed a rhetorical shift Sunday night by abandoning his everything-is-OK pitch to Americans and coming clean: He was wrong about the rationale for going to war in Iraq; he underestimated the dangers; the country has suffered "terrible loss"; and the bad news isn't over.

Even with his high-profile display of candor a step anxious Republican leaders had been demanding for weeks Bush remained unyielding.

"To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor and I will not allow it," he said in a prime-time address, capping a series of five speeches designed to reverse a stunning political free-fall.

There is some evidence that the rhetorical shift has worked. Recent polls suggest that while a majority of Americans disapprove of Bush's performance, his job rating has increased a bit. Nearly six of every 10 Americans said the U.S. military should stay until Iraq is stabilized, which is Bush's position.

A year ago, more than 70 percent held that view, and Bush insisted the Iraq war was on a steady path to victory. "Month by month, Iraqis are assuming more responsibility for their own security," Bush said during his re-election campaign.

Vice President Dick Cheney, the administration's chief cheerleader, went so far as to say last May that Iraqi insurgents were in the "last throes."

The happy talk didn't ring true to many Americans, who watched in horror as the U.S. death toll climbed above 2,000 and wondered why Bush refused to take time off from his summer vacation to meet with the mother of a slain soldier. Cindy Sheehan became the grim face of a budding anti-war movement.

Bush seemed out of touch, unable to grasp the concerns of people opposed to the war or even those who were starting to wonder about it.

While standing firm on his main principle that the war in Iraq is key to American security Bush reached out Sunday to those who disagree.

"I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt," Bush said. "I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom."

At his political best in 2004, Bush acknowledged that people would disagree with him and used that tension to burnish his credibility. "Even when we don't agree," he said at his nominating convention in New York, "you know what I believe and where I stand."

His credibility now in tatters, Bush injected a dose of reality into his rhetoric. He used some form of the word "sacrifice" four times, spoke three times of the "loss" caused by war and braced Americans for more to come: "There is more testing and sacrifice before us."

He said Iraq has been more difficult than expected, a rare admission of error. This is exactly what many senior Republicans had urged Bush to do speak bluntly about war as Franklin Roosevelt did during World War II and eloquently about the cause and sacrifice as Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War.

"Tonight was a high water mark in his acknowledgment that mistakes have been made and that he has to accept his share of the blame," said Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Did it work? That's for Americans to judge, but even with a softening of his rhetoric Bush is still giving doubters little leeway. People are still either with him or for defeat.

"Defeatism may have its partisan uses," he said, "but it is not justified by the facts."

You cannot love this country, love freedom, and not hate the media. They are simply traitors.

FDR would have thrown them in jail. Lincoln would have hanged them.

I can only hope they are the next targets of their heroes, their "freedom fighters." Patriots everywhere will dance in the streets.

You could knock me down with a feather after hearing this shocking news. But there it is, in black and white, running on the front page of all of our one party major media outlets in the UCLA News :

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study’s lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.

The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.

Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker’s support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.

Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.

Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo’s method assigned both a similar ADA score.

"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don’t think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News’ "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN’s "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC’s "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren’t centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC’s "World News Tonight" and NBC’s "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox’s ‘Special Report’ as ABC’s ‘World News’ and NBC’s ‘Nightly News,’ then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC’s "Good Morning America," CNN’s "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News’ "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS’ "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC’s "World News Tonight," NBC’s "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC’s "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR’s "Morning Edition," CBS’ "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."

Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.

"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post’s. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."

The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.

"No matter the results, we feared our findings would’ve been suspect if we’d received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.

The results break new ground.

"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."

If memory serves, this same result has been found before by other researchers. And they have been similarly ignored by the DNC/MSM. I wonder why?

Thanks to tenacious reader, Sheehanjihad , for rescuing this from history’s memory hole.

Our one party media’s disappointment in the high turn out and the low levels of violence during yesterday’s historic Iraqi elections is palpable.

Nevertheless, the pictures tell the glorious story:

Thank you, Casey Sheehan, and all the other brave men and women throughout the world who are fighting for freedom and against the forces of darkness.

Behold what Mother Sheehan’s " bright spot " and GQ’s " Man Of The Year " was up to a mere ten years ago, according to the back pages of the San Francisco Examiner :

Ex-cons take over S.F. tenant group

Leslie Goldberg OF THE EXAMINER STAFF
Tuesday, February 21, 1995

SAN FRANCISCO — Two ex-convicts have assumed control of a tenants organization at the Bernal Dwellings project, prompting fearful calls to police from residents and from officials of San Francisco’s Housing Authority.

The men are Malik Rahim, 47, a convicted armed robber, and Jeffrey Branner, 34, who police say was the enforcer for the Branner family crack cocaine ring that once controlled the housing project.

Housing Authority commissioners and staff say Rahim and Branner’s rise to power was encouraged by Felipe Floresca during his nine-month tenure as Housing Authority executive director, before he was forced to resign this month.

Rahim and Branner, in return, backed Floresca as he sought to retain his job, meeting with Mayor Jordan’s chief of staff, Jim Wunderman, to express their support, offering at one public meeting to "clean up" the commission for Floresca and urging him to "cut their (commissioners’) throats."

Police, including Chief Tony Ribera, say the situation at Bernal Dwellings is a top priority for the department.

While crime is down, overall, Ribera said, "there are areas of The City where crime is at intolerable levels.

"Bernal is one of those areas. I think it has to do with gangsters who have intimidated decent citizens to the point where we’re not getting the support we need for our enforcement programs. Witnesses are afraid to come forward."

Police Commander Richard Holder, in charge of special operations, said he had received more than 100 complaints about Rahim and Branner from Bernal residents and Housing Authority officials in the last nine months.

"People say they have been threatened. They are afraid," Holder said. "Sometimes I can’t sleep at night thinking of some of the stories people have told me."

Branner’s family dominated the cocaine and heroin trade in city housing projects in the 1980s, earning $7 million a year selling drugs out of apartments after forcing legitimate tenants out, police say.

When the gang was broken up in 1986, Jeffrey Branner served five years for selling cocaine. He faces trial on new cocaine sales charges next month.

"Jeff Branner was part of a crack cocaine ring that controlled Bernal for over a decade," said Holder. "As a result of this department’s work, most of those involved are in federal prison, but Jeff is out there again."

"We have a working drug case against him," Holder said.

"He is not a resident. He has no right to be there. We have people calling in tears, saying what kind of credibility do you have when you’re dealing with him as if he were a regular citizen?"

Rahim, also known as Donald Guyton and Donald Thomas, was convicted of armed robbery in Los Angeles and served five years in the 1970s and 1980s.

He was one of several charged in New Orleans with attempted murder of a police officer after a Black Panther shootout with police. The charges against all were dismissed.

Floresca’s surprise

Floresca’s ties to Rahim and Branner were a major concern for some commissioners and staffers.

Commissioners, who agreed to pay Floresca a one-year consulting fee of $145,000 in exchange for his resignation Feb. 3, were surprised six days later to learn that Floresca was still meeting with the two.

At a Feb. 9 Housing Authority meeting, Rahim told the commission that Floresca had met with him, Branner and residents and was now the consultant to their group, the Bernal Dwellings Tenants Association, which represents tenants in relations with the landlord, the Housing Authority.

Commission President Barbara Meskunas said that, under the consulting agreement with Floresca, "He has no role unless the commission says he does."

"His meeting was very bad judgment at best," she said,

"a serious conflict of interest at worst."

Floresca said he was not formally consulting with Rahim, Branner or residents they represented.

"As an individual concerned about public housing, I’m perfectly willing to sit down and have a cup of coffee with residents and talk about their concerns," he said.

$50 million at stake

Housing Authority staff and some commissioners say Rahim and Branner are trying to block the Hope VI project, a $50 million federal grant to demolish and rebuild Bernal Dwellings and the Plaza East development.

Rahim spoke for 30 minutes at the Feb. 9 meeting, calling Hope VI a plan to drive black people from San Francisco. He also vowed to stop the project if Meskunas and some staffers were not fired.

On Jan. 12, when Floresca was still executive director, Rahim told a Housing Authority meeting he wished Floresca had the "nerve to hire me and Jeff to clean up the commission; we’ll get a whole bunch of them out of here."

During the same meeting, Branner said: "Mr. Floresca, if all these commissioners don’t like you, then you’re the right man for the residents. Right now, it looks like you need to stand up there and cut their throats, man. That’s all you need is to cut their throats. You’ve got the residents behind you."

Floresca dismissed the comments: "People say a lot of things at housing commission meetings. I don’t judge people by their pasts."

Charges of intimidation

"They’ve intimidated staff, and they’ve intimidated residents," said Carmen Rosales, housing’s director of programs and grants.

Meskunas said residents of Bernal Dwellings wouldn’t go to Housing Authority meetings because they had been intimidated.

"When you have decent people who are too afraid to attend, the commission needs to do something," she said.

After the Feb. 9 meeting, some staffers said they were afraid to leave the building at 440 Turk St. because Rahim and Branner and some supporters were on the sidewalk, talking and laughing.

Police escorted them out a side door to their cars.

"Even that did not seem like enough," said a woman staffer who asked that her name not be used. "I wanted to be driven home."

The woman has worked with public housing residents for six years, she said, and "I’ve never been afraid before."

But Darnish Wright, a public housing resident and technical writer for the Housing Authority, said she wasn’t afraid of Rahim and Branner.

"Some people are just intimidated by black men, and especially black men who are physically large, have big mouths and who have criminal backgrounds – and Jeff and Malik are both that," Wright said.

Residents and housing staff are afraid to talk publicly about Branner and Rahim, and Commander Holder refused to give specific examples of intimidation complaints the police had received.

"This is a very sensitive area," Holder said.

Branner and Rahim denied trying to intimidate anyone.

Plans to profit

Floresca, who is credited with obtaining the Hope VI grant, noted that "residents have very real fears that they will be displaced and not have the opportunity to move back" when the projects are torn down and replaced by townhouses. There will be fewer units, he said.

At Floresca’s suggestion, Housing Authority staffer Jim Williams said, Branner and Rahim have formed a moving company, called Invest, to cash in on about $700,000 in federal funds that would be set aside to move residents as part of Hope VI.

"We’ve had residents complain that they’ve been asked to give $100 to Rahim and Branner’s moving company," said Lt. Jake Stasko of the SFPD’s housing task force. "The impression was, "Give us the money, or else!’ For that, they’ve been told they’re going to get jobs around public housing."

Rahim and Branner said that, while they had once been criminals, they now were law-abiding, dedicated to bettering the lives of The City’s public housing tenants.

Branner denied any residents had been pressured into investing in the moving company and said, "If they want their money back, they can come get it. It’s still sitting here. We haven’t touched it."

"Doing positive, not criminal’

Branner, who has a wife and five children, said he was born again, a deacon at his church.

"I’m still Jeff," he said. "I’m still on the streets, but now I’m doing positive, not criminal or violent activities. . . . I’m doing things like registering people to vote."

Rahim said he’d returned to work in public housing, in part, because, "These young kids around here need a good role model."

Police arrested both Branner and Rahim this month for relatively minor offenses involving a boarded up apartment Floresca let them use for tenant organizing.

Branner was arrested Feb. 2 for trespass as police and fire inspectors were shutting the apartment for fire code violations, and he allegedly refused to leave.

Rahim was arrested for burglary Feb. 5, when officers said he had broken into the boarded-up apartment.

In each case, the district attorney declined to file charges.

Housing Commissioner Richard Carpeneti said he had no evidence of intimidation by Rahim and Branner and was not bothered by their criminal pasts.

He objects, though, to what they are doing to block Hope VI and the $50 million opportunity to better the lives of 1,159 public housing residents of San Francisco.

"If, in five years, people are still suffering, living in these awful projects, it will be Jeff and Malik’s fault," he said.

Carpeneti said he was astounded that Floresca had met with Rahim and Branner after he’d resigned.

"Here we’re paying him nearly $150,000 to do as we want, and he’s meeting with Jeff and Malik, who are clearly in an adversarial position to what we want, what HUD wants, what the mayor wants, even what Mr. Floresca himself wants: clean, safe public housing," he said.

Floresca said he had begun meeting with Rahim and Branner shortly after he’d become executive director, saying "I don’t choose who the residents pick as their organizer."

Floresca met with Rahim and Branner as many as one to three times a week, staffers said. But he wasn’t the only high city official to do so.

This is some revelation. It certainly helps explain Malik Rahim’s concern about how New Orleans will be rebuilt and redeveloped after Katrina. Why he rails against "gentrification" so.

It seems Rahim doesn’t want to risk losing his fiefdom and any of his customers. And it has been ever thus.

(Much kowtowing to the ever intrepid sleuth, John , for ferreting this story out.)