Comey never admits that its the NSA program he is talking about. This assumption is made by Specter. Comey never confirms it. Apparently, Gonzales previously testified that it was something else.

On February 6, 2006, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, you were asked whether Mr. Comey and others at the Justice Department had raised concerns about the NSA wiretapping program. You stated in response that the disagreement that occurred was not related to the wiretapping program confirmed by the President in December 2005, which was the topic of the hearing.

It might not be the NSA program...

Here is my selected exerpt, with some content cut and some emphasis added...

How aggressively would you interrogate those being held at Guantanamo Bay for information about where the next attack might be?

SEN. MCCAIN: The use of torture -- we could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people.

When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us, as we went -- underwent torture ourselves, is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them.

It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know.

MR. GIULIANI: In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes that we know there's going to be another attack and these people know about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of --

MR. HUME: Water-boarding?

MR. GIULIANI: -- and I would -- and I would -- well, I'd say every method they could think of, and I would support them in doing that because I've seen what -- (interrupted by applause) -- I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don't want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or any place else.

MR. HUME: Governor Romney, I'd like to draw you out on this.

MR. ROMNEY: Now we're going to -- you said the person's going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there.

Some people have said, we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo. We ought to make sure that the terrorists -- (applause) -- and there's no question but that in a setting like that where you have a ticking bomb that the president of the United States -- not the CIA interrogator, the president of the United States -- has to make the call. And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used -- not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.

REP. PAUL: I think it's interesting talking about torture here in that it's become enhanced interrogation technique. It sounds like Newspeak.

REP. TANCREDO: Well, let me just say that it's almost unbelievable to listen to this in a way. We're talking about -- we're talking about it in such a theoretical fashion. You say that -- that nuclear devices have gone off in the United States, more are planned, and we're wondering about whether waterboarding would be a -- a bad thing to do? I'm looking for "Jack Bauer" at that time, let me tell you. (Laughter, applause.)

And -- and there is -- there is nothing -- if you are talking about -- I mean, we are the last best hope of Western civilization. And so all of the theories that go behind our activities subsequent to these nuclear attacks going off in the United States, they go out the window because when -- when we go under, Western civilization goes under. So you better take that into account, and you better do every single thing you can as president of the United States to make sure, number one, it doesn't happen -- that's right -- but number two, you better respond in a way that makes them fearful of you because otherwise you guarantee something like this will happen.

Rep. Tancredo, the reason western civilization looks hopefully upon you is the sort of values that Sen. McCain mentioned. If your perspective triumphs, you've already gone under. Its over.

Republican Presidential Candiates on Torture

k wrote:
I did, but I couldn't help commenting on this. It's people like this that are going to tear the country apart when the next terrorist attack happens.

I agree. Some of these perspectives are deeply authoritarian. There are a lot of people on the right who simply do not care about right/wrong or the rule of law or constitutional rights based on both a stupid misconception that they holding the reins and an ignorant, perhaps actually evil, beleif that the innocent people who'll be swept up in their security measures aren't like them and they have no reason to protect them. The idea of checks and balances is a joke to these people at best, at worst they think it undermines the "consequences" that they get to extract from winning an election. They have a different conception of what America is than I do. They don't see it as a system, a set of ideas about how to run a society. They see it as a place and a group of people and a pile of cash. They don't really care how its governed as long as their direct personal interests are satisfied. To them, the slightest risk is worth sacrificing the greatest ideal.

I don't deny that it probably will, mainly because Bush's DHS has fucked up priorities. But I'm equally sure it'll happen after a Dem is elected in the next election, because it'll do more damage then.

I'm not sure Bush will be "to blame." Its inevitable that these things happen because they are impossible to absolutely prevent no matter how competent you are. Its also inevitable that civil liberties will be torn down at the first opportunity, and inevitable that new found police powers will be used far outside the scope of anti-terrorism. This is because they still aren't really serious about this. They are still playing games. Thus far, however, the federal government has successfully prevented another attack on our soil, as they prevented many attacks prior to 9/11.

The testimony itself seems pretty damning of the white house and the president in particular and shows a side of Ashcroft i didn't know was there honestly. Not that i'm his biggest fan, but I appreciate that he had enough scruples to not be bullied into something by WH goons and the integrity to point at his acting AG and tell them to talk to the guy who's making the decisions now. Fairly surprising all in all.

I'm not sure I agree. It seems, perhaps, a bit more human than the perspective we usually get from reading externally facing statements. Organizations like the WhiteHouse are not monolithic. They have internal disagreements about decisions. While Ashcroft did the right thing here, it is interesting that he signed off on this program for years before his lawyers got around to reviewing it! Would you sign off on the legaltiy of an executive program without actually analyzing it's legality? Its not clear that Gonzales knew how creepy he was by showing up at the hospital with that paperwork. He may not have truely grasped Ashcroft's condition and they may have felt uncomfortable having such a policy reversal presented by an acting AG. Furthermore, I think the President comes off smelling like roses, in offering that Comey should do what he felt was right.

What is most interesting to me is the statement at the very end that the legal staffer was turned up for a promotion because he chose to take this stand... Retribution, but from whom? Its not clear!

What is clear is that prior to this event the NSA surveillance program had a different, and likely more invasive, character than the one with which we are familiar.

RE: The Volokh Conspiracy - Full Transcript of Comey Testimony on NSA Surveillance Program:

WOW. This is quite a dramatic moment. Its hard to imagine Ashcroft, who really was no friend to civil liberties, taking such a stand. It says a lot about this program.

If I'm reading the transcript correctly, it seems that most of the highest-level officials in DOJ were ready to resign over the NSA Surveillance program when the White House decided to continue it without DOJ approval. The Office of Legal Counsel under Jack Goldsmith had come up with parameters under which DOJ was willing to approve the program as legal — perhaps within the scope of the AUMF? who knows — and it sounds like the then-existing program was broader than what OLC thought was permitted. Comey agreed with OLC's legal analysis, so he wasn't willing to give DOJ's approval to the program. So Card and Gonzales (then WH Counsel) go to Ashcroft at the hospital to try to persuade Ashcroft to overrule Comey. Comey gets word of what is happening, and he gets to the hospital first and tries to get Ashcroft ready for Card and Gonzales. Comey explains:

And so I raced to the hospital room, entered. And Mrs. Ashcroft was standing by the hospital bed, Mr. Ashcroft was lying down in the bed, the room was darkened. And I immediately began speaking to him, trying to orient him as to time and place, and try to see if he could focus on what was happening, and it wasn’t clear to me that he could. He seemed pretty bad off . . . I tried to see if I could help him get oriented. As I said, it wasn’t clear that I had succeeded.  Soon Goldmsith and the ADAG are there by Ashcroft's bedside, and a few minutes later Gonzales and Card arrive... They greeted the attorney general very briefly. And then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there — to seek his approval . . . .

And Attorney General Ashcroft then stunned me. He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me — drawn from the hour-long meeting we’d had a week earlier — and in very strong terms expressed himself, and then laid his head back down on the pillow, seemed spent, and said to them, But that doesn’t matter, because I’m not the attorney general. . . . There is the attorney general, and he pointed to me, and I was just to his left.

Feingold says: "Some of the most dramatic testimony that I've heard in 25 years that I've been a legislator."

The Volokh Conspiracy - Full Transcript of Comey Testimony on NSA Surveillance Program:

A company called Acacia has claimed a patent on an “information distribution system” that amounts to the idea of shipping a CD-ROM that contains hyperlinks to online resources. (EFF is currently working on busting another Acacia patent that covers streaming audio and video over the Internet.)

To help bust this overly broad patent, we are looking for prior art that shows the use of this technology before 1994.

Someone on MemeStreams MUST have something like this:

Anyone using counterfeit products who "recklessly causes or attempts to cause death" can be imprisoned for life. During a conference call, Justice Department officials gave the example of a hospital using pirated software instead of paying for it.

This is just bizarre!

Tech news blog - Gonzales proposes life in prison for software pirates

After you've read Why I'm Banned in the USA and watched How Rudy Will Make GWB Look Good, complete the trilogy by listening to this show.

The original version of this episode won a Peabody award in 2006.

The right of habeas corpus has been a part of our country's legal tradition longer than we've actually been a country. It means that our government has to explain why it's holding a person in custody. But now, the War on Terror has nixed many of the rules we used to think of as fundamental. At Guantanamo Bay, our government initially claimed that prisoners should not be covered by habeas—or even by the Geneva Conventions—because they're the most fearsome enemies we have. But is that true? Is it a camp full of terrorists, or a camp full of our mistakes?

From the Peabody web site:

This report, about the denial of habeas corpus to terrorism suspects, focuses on the stories of two former Guantanamo Bay prisoners and explains why the right is so fundamental in American law.

You can stream the new episode and download the original one.

Habeas Schmabeas 2007 | This American Life, Episode 331

The truth of the matter is that the administration cannot name one individual who has been released from Guantanamo that was found on the battlefield, dead or alive.

The Blog | H. Candace Gorman: Return to the Battlefield: The Number One Guantanamo Myth | The Huffington Post

I fear that the United States has grown fearful of ideas.

Why I'm Banned in the USA - washingtonpost.com

Link to the Henery Rollins Radio Show that Noteworthy indirectly referenced back in the day.
LA Weekly says:

Earning local and national props as a DJ, Rollins labors over his playlists and it shows. Every week is an in-depth lesson in contemporary music history ranging from Delta blues to death metal to little-heard art rock from across the globe. Some of the songs he plays were never released to the public — a few he received as gifts “back in the day,” and some he retrieved from the clutches of another collector.

U Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the actual audio for this on the web. There are a few archived shows from 2004, but nothing recent. Anyone got links, let me know.

HARMONY IN MY HEAD