Reuters interview with Mike McConnell on cybersecurity - a misinformation case study

we're all reasonably aware of the ability of news media to shape the national dialogue by focusing on subject matter that the ptb wishes to highlight in the public consciousness... we're also pretty much aware of how little context we get with most news stories where often critical background information is conveniently omitted that, if included, would give a story significantly deeper meaning... and we're also aware that key public figures will often make themselves available for interviews to news outlets when they are trying to soften the public up for an event or decision that might not sit well... rarely, however, do all of these come together in one article...

Ex-U.S. spy chief says may take crisis for new cyber law

U.S. intelligence agencies have unique capabilities that can help protect American companies from cyber espionage and attack, but it will probably take a crisis to change laws to allow that type of cooperation, a former spy chief said on Monday.

Intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency are authorized to operate abroad but generally are restricted from working within the United States,

"Until we have a banking collapse or electric power goes off in the middle of a snowstorm for eight weeks, or something of that magnitude, we're likely just to talk about it and not do much," Mike McConnell, former director of national intelligence, said.

[...]

The House intelligence committee in December approved a bill that would allow U.S. spy agencies to share cyber-threat intelligence with private companies. Some critics worry that could lead to government surveillance of private data.

[...]

"There are unique things that the government can do. For example code-breaking. The private sector out there does not do code-breaking," McConnell, a former National Security Agency director, told Reuters in an interview.

"How would you harness that capability and then make it available to the private sector in a way that their infrastructure could be better protected?"

[...]

McConnell gives an example that if NSA, which conducts electronic eavesdropping to detect foreign threats, observed a cyberthreat against the U.S. private sector, "NSA is powerless to do a thing other than issue a report."

He said in the area of cyber exploitation, such as reading an adversary's mail without leaving fingerprints, the United States, Britain and Russia are probably the best.

The United States also has the ability to conduct cyber attacks, which would be to degrade or destroy an adversary's computerized system, and has used it.

Has the United States used its cyber attack capability? "Yes," McConnell said. Did it work? "Yes."

McConnell, now vice chairman at the Booz Allen Hamilton consulting firm in charge of cyber activities, did not elaborate on the use of a cyber attack capability.

"Do we have the ability to attack, degrade or destroy? Sure. If you do that, what are the consequences? That is the question," he said.

McConnell said the priority is to protect the country's critical infrastructure such as the financial sector, the electric power grid and transportation from cyber attack and stop the theft of intellectual property through cyber espionage.

"There will be a thousand voices on what is the right thing to do," and it will probably require a crisis to reach consensus, he said.

i'll give credit where credit is due... at least they bothered to mention mcconnell's position with booz allen even if it took 'em 14 paragraphs to do it...

what might have been additional contextually significant information is that mcconnell is a poster child for the revolving door between top u.s. government posts and the corporations that feed off of government contracts... mcconnell served as senior vp for intelligence and national security at booz after retiring from the navy as nsa director and before being appointed as the director of national security by george bush and went immediately back to booz again as a senior vp seven days after the obama presidential inauguration and has since assumed the post of booz vice chairman (see here)...

other information about booz that would have been relevant is that booz is the 9th largest u.s. government contractor with annual revenues of over $5B, does an enormous amount of work with the u.s. government in the area of technology and cybersecurity, is majority owned by the carlyle group and has a strong profit motive to push an increase in government cyber capability by fronting a former dni who just so happens to be its current vice chairman (see here and here)...

now, what to make out of mcconnell's statement that "it will probably require a crisis"...? if there isn't one that occurs naturally and spontaneously, can we assume one will be created...? are we being tipped off...? does mcconnell know something we don't...? is it a veiled threat...?

why can't news organizations give us the information we need to make sense out of a story...? just because i happen to be a news junkie, i am aware of all this relevant background but why can't such information be a legitimate part of the news...? it would certainly help people discharge their responsibilities as informed citizens...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Glenn reviews CNN's John King's interview of Mike McConnell

our government bought-and-paid-for propaganda machine at work...

[DNI Mike] McConnell is burdened by one of the most glaring conflicts of interest that we've seen in any significant political debate over the last seven years. His career before becoming DNI was devoted to the very private telecom sector on whose behalf he's now demanding immunity. When he claims that the Fate of the Nation rests on granting retroactive immunity to the telecom industry, he's advocating for his long-time partners, colleagues, and business associates. In the job he held prior to becoming DNI -- director of defense programs at Booz Allen -- he was directly involved with the very people, and possibly the very programs, for which he is now demanding amnesty

[...]

CNN invited a high government official onto its news program to issue extremely dubious, fear-mongering demands for more government surveillance power and for a huge gift for the industry of which he was long a critical part, threatening Americans that they would be in severe danger if they didn't assent in full. They had nobody on with him or afterwards to contradict anything he said. The interviewer confessed to knowing almost nothing about the topic and spent his time doing very little other than vouching for the government official's honesty and apolitical integrity. After several minutes of airing uncontradicted government propaganda, the interview ended and the interviewer profusely thanked the government official for coming on.

do these "news" outlets really get it that we're on to them...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Now, the Bush admin is claiming the telcos are refusing to cooperate

lord almighty... the bush administration is never going to stop playing the fear card...

Two top Bush administration officials said Friday that some telecommunications companies are resisting wiretapping orders for terrorists because a surveillance law expired nearly a week ago.

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey made the assertion in a letter to Congress, the latest salvo in a rhetorical war between the White House and Capitol Hill over the law's expiration and the refusal of House Democrats to adopt a Senate-passed bill in its place.

The House has passed its own version of surveillance legislation. Democrats want to work out the differences between the bills rather than accept the Senate's version outright.

The two bills differ in one important way: The Senate bill provides retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that wiretapped American phone and computer lines at the government's request after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but without the permission of a secret court created 30 years ago to oversee such activities. The House does not provide telecom immunity.

President Bush has promised to veto any surveillance bill that does not protect the companies from civil lawsuits that allege violations of privacy and wiretapping laws under the warrantless wiretapping program.

McConnell predicted last week that the government's surveillance of terrorists would be harmed by the expiration of the law. He and Mukasey said that, six days after the law expired, that prediction has come true.

"We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act," they wrote in a letter to Rep. Sylvestre Reyes, chairman of the House intelligence committee.

They said some private companies have delayed or refused compliance with requests to initiate wiretaps against people covered by orders issued under the expired law. They said most companies are cooperating, but some have suggested they will stop if "the uncertainty persists."

Senior administration officials refused Friday to specify which companies, or how many, were not cooperating. They said the companies believe the law's expiration means no changes can be made in existing orders, which can last for as long as a year. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

so, we've got to go to those telecoms and tell them, "look, we know we 'forced' you to break the law, and we know we told you we'd fix everything up for you, but we didn't expect that breaking the law was going to cause so much fuss, so just hang in there and keep on breaking the law, and we'll keep trying to change the law so that you won't have to break it any more, ok...?"

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Hayden, McConnell and Mukasey are "highly respected and nonpolitical officials"

IF it is true, according to bill kristol, writing in today's nyt, that...

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of national intelligence, the retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected and nonpolitical officials with little in the way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds.

THEN why, pray tell, are they behaving that way now...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Greenwald: "There is one reason, and one reason only, that the Protect America Act expired"

this post is dedicated to the protect america act which expired 7 hours ago at midnight, est...

There is one reason, and one reason only, that the Protect America Act expired. Its name is "George W. Bush." That is who refused to agree to the Democrats' offer to extend the law by 21 days (or longer), then repeatedly threatened to veto any such extension ("US President George W. Bush on Wednesday vowed to veto another temporary extension of a domestic spying law"), then directed the always-obedient House Republicans to vote unanimously against the extension, which they (needless to say) did. This vital-to-our-safety piece of legislation expired only because George W. Bush repeatedly blocked its extension. It's just that simple.

[...]

[M]any right-wing polemicists use fearmongering techniques like this... manipulatively, to exploit the Terrorist threat for more unchecked government power and to advance their political agenda.

But many of them actually believe this, and there are undoubtedly all sorts of individuals in the U.S. today nervously looking at their clocks, with accelerating heartbeat and a deepening sense of foreboding, knowing that the Hour of Danger is nigh upon us. This pitiful, fear-drenched absurdity is the face of the Bush Movement, the symbol of the post-9/11 Bush Era in the United States.

a commenter to greenwald's post, fmd, inquires...

If the nation is really going to be more vulnerable as the result of the expiration of the PAA (Protect AT&T Act), why hasn't Homeland Security's color coded threat level been raised to Magenta or Puce or some such thing?

so, on a sunday morning here in buenos aires, as i look out at the brilliant blue sky and listen to the occasional annoying ratcheting of the cicadas float in on the summer breeze, i wonder if my country will make it through the day without a determined and dreaded jihadi attack, now that the paa telephone companies* is are no longer there to protect us...

Officials made clearer Friday that the real dispute is over the protection of phone companies for past actions. Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, told National Public Radio on Friday: "It's true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time frame. However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector. We can't do this mission without their help."

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Greenwald: "Are there any limits at all on the willingness of Congressional Democrats to be bullied and humiliated by Republicans?"

glenn writes on bush's threatened veto of the 60-day fisa extension...

This veto threat is one of the President's most brazen acts ever, so nakedly exposing the fun and games he routinely plays with National Security Threats. After sending Mike McConnell out last August to warn that we will all die without the PAA, Bush now says that he would rather let it expire than give Congress another 30 days. He just comes right out and announces, then, that he will leave us all vulnerable to a Terrorist Attack unless he not only gets everything he wants from Congress -- all his new warrantless eavesdropping powers made permanent plus full immunity for his lawbreaking telecom partners -- but also gets it exactly when he wants it (i.e., now -- not 30 days from now).

If the Democrats had even the slightest strategic sense and/or courage -- just the slightest amount -- this is a political confrontation they would be uncontrollably eager to have. Just imagine if they sustain the filibuster today and instead pass a 30-day extension of the PAA, and then Bush vetoes it, knowingly choosing to leave the intelligence community without the ability to Listen In When Osama Is Calling. It would be the height of political stupidity for Democrats to be afraid of that outcome.

* * * * *

That's what is at stake today as Senate Democrats try to sustain a filibuster against the Republicans' efforts to force a final vote on the truly pernicious Senate Intelligence Committee bill. Are there any limits at all on the willingness of Congressional Democrats to be bullied and humiliated by Republicans, even by the most transparently disingenuous tactics such as these?

[...]

The veto threat from the President is so unbelievably corrupt and manipulative that if our national press had even the smallest amount of critical faculties and understanding of the issues, that veto threat would be a major story. After all, how can the President possibly threaten the country that he will veto a law that he himself has claimed for months is indispensable for Protecting Us All?

[...]

Any rational person has long ago given up the hope that Congressional Democrats will stand for any actual political convictions, but the most basic sense of personal pride and human dignity -- which one thought was an intrinsic part of human nature -- would preclude their capitulation today. If they don't stand up to the White House and Senate Republicans under these circumstances, one might as well accept that they never will do so.

when the results of the 2006 mid-term elections came out, i spent the entire day in a buoyant mood, thinking that perhaps, at last, the tide was turning and that the most corrupt and criminal presidential administration in history would finally be held accountable, that unfettered executive power would be put in check, and that the separate but equal balance of powers laid out in the constitution would be restored... after congress began its new session in january, it didn't take any longer than the first few weeks to see that my hopes were sadly misplaced... the much-ballyhooed democratic takeover of congress only served to throw the criminal complicity of the democrats into high relief... i spent many months after that, huffing and puffing, elevating my blood pressure through outbursts of indignation and outrage, all for naught... now, the thought of there being only one or two senators (dodd and maybe feingold) standing between the citizens of the united states, our constitution, and the darkest cabal in world history, is not a comforting thought...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The infrastructure to tap into Americans' email and web search history MAY already be in place?

i don't think there's any MAY about it... it IS in place and has been for much longer than any of us would like to believe, easily dating back to the mid-90s or even earlier...

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is drawing up plans for cyberspace spying that would make the current debate on warrantless wiretaps look like a "walk in the park," according to an interview published in the New Yorker's print edition today.

Debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “will be a walk in the park compared to this,” McConnell said. “this is going to be a goat rope on the Hill. My prediction is that we’re going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens.”

The article, which profiles the 65-year-old former admiral appointed by President George W. Bush in January 2007 to oversee all of America's intelligence agencies, was not published on the New Yorker's Web site [PDF].

McConnell is developing a Cyber-Security Policy, still in the draft stage, which will closely police Internet activity.

"Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the autority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search," author Lawrence Wright pens.

“Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation, he said," Wright adds. "Giorgio warned me, 'We have a saying in this business: ‘Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"

A zero-sum game is one in which gains by one side come at the expense of the other. In other words -- McConnell's aide believes greater security can only come at privacy's expense.

[...]

The infrastructure to tap into Americans' email and web search history may already be in place.

In November, a former technician at AT&T alleged that the telecom forwarded virtually all of its Internet traffic into a "secret room" to facilitate government spying.

Whistleblower Mark Klein said that a copy of all Internet traffic passing over AT&T lines was copied into a locked room at the company's San Francisco office -- to which only employees with National Security Agency clearance had access -- via a cable splitting device.

i know there's a lot of folks out there that, when this stuff registers on their radar screen, somehow manage to shrug and just let it roll off their backs... others are easily distracted by the bells and whistles of the election campaign, somehow believing that the "right" choice for our next president will somehow magically insure salvation... then there are those like me and a few others who see the broader pattern of what's happening and have heart palpitations over every fresh revelation... but, putting all those folks together still doesn't add up to more than a few, single-digit percentage points of the citizenry... how many out there actually bother to inform themselves to the extent that they even READ articles like this...? how many actually UNDERSTAND that our precious constitution is being systematically shredded, that the rule of law has gone out the window, and that accountability is at the top of the endangered species list...? or do they know and just not care as long as there is no significant impact on their daily lives...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

I'm with Kagro X... Article I is dead so let's have a funeral...

we are so screwed, and anybody that thinks congress is going to do a goddam thing to protect and preserve our constitution is smoking some high quality shit...

Three telecommunications companies have declined to tell Congress whether they gave U.S. intelligence agencies access to Americans' phone and computer records without court orders, citing White House objections and national security.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell "formally invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent AT&T from either confirming or denying" any details about intelligence programs, AT&T general counsel Wayne Watts wrote in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Qwest and Verizon also declined to answer, saying the federal government has prohibited them from providing information, discussing or referring to any classified intelligence activities.

"Our company essentially finds itself caught in the middle of an oversight dispute between the Congress and the executive relating to government surveillance activities," Watts wrote.

The White House declined to comment on the matter Monday.

kagro x at daily kos, in full...

Did you catch that?

Three telecommunications companies have declined to tell Congress. Citing White House objections.

First, the White House says it can use executive privilege to prevent former employees from testifying before Congress. (And Congress does nothing.)

Now, the White House says it can use the state secrets privilege (normally something invoked in the courts, not in Congress) to prevent corporations from testifying before Congress.

Any guesses on what Congress will do with this one?

Note, too, that the companies say "the federal government" has prohibited them from providing this information.

Has Congress removed itself from "the federal government" since we last checked?

Congress now demands the right to inform itself about the subject matter on which it legislates, and the executive branch says no -- and not only no, but that any bill not containing the provisions it demands but will not permit the Congress to inform itself on will be vetoed.

Article I is dead, and the least concerned with the death, astoundingly, is the Article I branch.

just in case you forgot, here's some selected Article I items...

The Constitution of the United States

Article. I. - The Legislative Branch

Section 1 - The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2 - The House

[...]

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3 - The Senate

[...]

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

[...]

Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

[...]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

[...]

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[...]

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

[...]

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

i think we should have a full-blown funeral with a military honor guard and a 21-gun salute...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"Government lawbreaking has become formally legitimized"

i posted yesterday on mcconnell's interview... glenn greenwald has some thoughts of his own...

McConnell clearly described that in 1978, we enacted a law prohibiting warrantless eavesdropping; the Bush administration broke that law repeatedly; and the telecommunications companies actively participated in that lawbreaking. And now -- as a matter of national security -- the Bush administration is demanding that Congress pass a new law declaring that telecom companies are immune from any and all consequences -- both civil and criminal -- in the event they are found to have violated the law. It is hard to imagine open contempt for the rule of law being expressed more explicitly than this.

What possible reason is there to protect anyone -- including telecom companies -- with a special law enacted to declare that they are relieved of all accountability for illegal behavior? And the premise of this argument is even more dangerous than the conclusion: it is all premised on the claim that these companies were only acting at the behest of George Bush, and therefore were entitled, even obligated, to do what they did. In other words, the President has the power to order private actors to break the law and when those orders are obeyed, the private actors are immune from the consequences of their lawbreaking, because they acted at the Leader's behest.

That government officials like McConnell feel so comfortable openly admitting that the government broke the law, obtaining amendments to legalize that behavior after the fact, and then demanding immunity for the lawbreakers, demonstrates how severely the rule of law has been eroded over the last six years. It is not hyperbole to say that government lawbreaking has become formally legitimized.

the entire article is well-worth reading, particularly UPDATE II at the bottom, where glenn excerpts tim shorrock's earlier salon article that details mcconnell's extensive contacts within the defense telecommunications industry he developed as director of defense programs at booz allen...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

McConnell talks: It's a "classified world" and "Americans are going to die"

yep... he's out there spilling the beans... bushco can talk about whatever the hell they want to talk about, whenever and however they want to talk about it, as long as it serves their purpose... but, ask 'em a question and suddenly it's national security, executive privilege, state secrets, classified, or whatever other bullshit reason they want to cite...

highlowpoints from mcconnell's interview with the el paso times...

• McConnell confirmed for the first time that the private sector assisted with President Bush's warrantless surveillance program. AT&T, Verizon and other telecommunications companies are being sued for their cooperation. "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies," McConnell said, arguing that they deserve immunity for their help.

• He provided new details on court rulings handed down by the 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves classified eavesdropping operations and whose proceedings are almost always entirely secret. McConnell said a ruling that went into effect May 31 required the government to get court warrants to monitor communications between two foreigners if the conversation travels on a wire in the U.S. network. Millions of calls each day do, because of the robust nature of the U.S. systems.

• McConnell said it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant on a single telephone number. "We're going backwards," he said. "We couldn't keep up."

• Offering never-disclosed figures, McConnell also revealed that fewer than 100 people inside the United States are monitored under FISA warrants. However, he said, thousands of people overseas are monitored.

and what possible use would this information be if it wasn't used to inspire fear in the populace...?

Even as he shed new light on the classified operations, McConnell asserted that the current debate in Congress about whether to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will cost American lives because of all the information it revealed to terrorists.

"Part of this is a classified world. The fact that we're doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die," he said.

message: "stop trying to find out what your government is doing in your name cuz it might cost you your life..."

uh, 'scuse me... who's doing the threatening here...? oops... i forgot... i'm not supposed to ask questions... ok, then... here's an observation...

terrorists (the REAL ones, that is, as opposed to the pathetic wannabes that were set-up by our government to LOOK like terrorists so the government could LOOK like it was protecting the "homeland") are not stupid... they probably know more about our government's surveillance programs and supporting technology than mcconnell does... pick up the quasi-cyberpunk, sci-fi thriller, The Traveler, by John Twelve Hawks, if you want to get a good picture of how things are REALLY going down... you'll never see a store security camera or your supermarket discount card the same way again... seriously, check it out...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Update on Gitmo

well, it was a mildly uplifting thought for a fleeting moment...

“No decisions on the future of Guantanamo Bay are imminent, and there will not be a White House meeting tomorrow,” White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said in response to a report by the Associated Press.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Closing Gitmo would defeat the entire purpose

if this does indeed happen, it's going to remove the primary reason why detainees have been held outside the u.s. - the excuse that u.s. law does not apply in a place like guantánamo... there will be some serious implications arising from a decision to close gitmo, all of them, i hope, favorable to restoring our historic and enormously important system of justice... and i hope the first thing that gets restored is habeas corpus...

The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.

President Bush's national security and legal advisers are expected to discuss the move at the White House on Friday and, for the first time, it appears a consensus is developing, senior administration officials said Thursday.

The advisers will consider a new proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum security military prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where they could face trial, said the officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.

Officials familiar with the agenda of the Friday meeting said Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Peter Pace were expected to attend.

It was not immediately clear if the meeting would result in a final recommendation to Bush.

i posted this back in february on the basic purpose of guantánamo...

The whole purpose of setting up Guantánamo Bay is for torture. Why do this? Because you want to escape the rule of law. There is only one thing that you want to escape the rule of law to do, and that is to question people coercively—what some people call torture. Guantánamo and the military commissions are implements for breaking the law.

—Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, January 2007, to the author, Marie Brenner, in the article, Taking on Guantánamo, Vanity Fair, March 2007.

does closing gitmo mean we're not going to torture any more...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Assuming, of course, you’re the kind of boss who doesn’t WANT to be sucked up to

it is to laugh… the following is excerpted from a regular newsletter i receive from booz allen hamilton on strategy and business… senior vice president for booz allen, you may remember, was the most recent position held by mike mcconnell, the recently-confirmed director of national security… perhaps mike could wrangle a few minutes with george and go over the key points of the article…

Not one [presidential] profile has ever included a desired behavior that reads “effectively sucks up to management the president.” Although given the dedication to fawning and sucking up in most corporations presidential administrations — and how often such behavior is rewarded — it probably should. Almost every company president says it he wants people to “challenge the system,” “be empowered to express their opinion,” and “say what they really think,” but there sure are a lot of companies presidential administrations that are stuck on sucking up.

Not only do companies presidents say they abhor such comically servile behavior, but so do individual leaders their subordinates. Almost all the leaders presidents I have met say that they would never encourage such a thing in their organizations administrations. I have no doubt that they are sincere. Most of us are easily irritated, if not disgusted, by derrière kissers. Which raises a question: If leaders presidents say they discourage sucking up, why does it dominate the workplace Bush administration? Keep in mind that these leaders presidents are generally very shrewd judges of character. They spend their lives sizing people up: taking in first impressions and recalibrating them against later impressions. And yet, they still fall for the super-skilled suck-up. They still play favorites.

(as you can see, i’ve taken the liberty to make a few changes…)

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments