The Obama Administration has once again reaffirmed the new relativism controlling Washington in the nomination of James Comey as the next director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, even as it struggles to put out the controversy over its attack on free press principles. Comey was a critical player in the abuse warrantless surveillance program of the Bush Administration and will now be put in charge of the people carrying out such surveillance. The Administration has been spinning the nomination by pointing out that it was Comey who opposed efforts of the Bush White House in a famous confrontation by the hospital bed of the Attorney General John Ashcroft. However, while that was admirable, Comey did what all officials in his position are duty bound to do (though few in the Bush Administration fulfilled that obligation). Comey however also was critical in other abuses of warrantless surveillance as well as the abusive treatment of Jose Padilla and Plamegate. He is no hero for civil libertarians by any measure.
Of course, this unconstitutional program and Comey’s role were not fully disclosed because the Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration, opposed (successfully) any ability of individuals or public interest groups to challenge the program in federal court.
Then there is Comey’s knowledge and role in the Bush torture program. While he is known to express reservations, he still went along with the torture program. Soon after taking office, President Obama promised CIA employees that they would not be prosecuted for torture and the Obama Justice Department has blocked every effort to hold officials, including Justice Department officials, accountable.
The media is again following the spin and only reporting Comey’s confrontation on the one surveillance program. Stories are only covering opposition from the right as opposed to his opposition among civil libertarians. Comey is an example that in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King. His opposition to this one program has excused his failure to stand against a host of other violations.
Source: Guardian
Meet the Punk Rocker Who Can Liberate Your FBI File
Ryan Shapiro’s technique is so effective at unburying sensitive documents, the feds are asking the courts to stop him.
—By Will Potter
| Wed Nov. 13, 2013 3:00 AM PST
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/foia-ryan-shapiro-fbi-files-lawsuit
Excerpt:
“The FBI, oddly enough, is processing his requests involving arsons by the fringe Animal Liberation Front but blocking documents concerning movement mainstays like Mercy for Animals. Some of the disputed requests pertain to anti-animal-rights groups such as the Center for Consumer Freedom. The FBI’s so-called extremists span a wide spectrum—from former ALF operative Rod Coronado to Jon Camp, who has no criminal record and whose job consists of handing out leaflets for a group called Vegan Outreach. I was surprised to learn that I, too, am among them—and that the bureau asserts that releasing information about me and my book would interfere with law enforcement proceedings.
A ruling is expected in the case within the next few months. In the meantime, Shapiro continues writing his dissertation, collecting waivers, and drafting FOIA requests late at night while watching television with his wife. Lately he’s been interested in getting the FBI files of famous punk and hip-hop artists. He acknowledges that his work has become a borderline obsession. When Daniel Ellsberg visited MIT for a lecture, Shapiro had lunch with him and some other grad students. He walked away with a privacy waiver from the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers. ”
http://youtu.be/u6QbLK5aySU
How Obama’s FBI Nominee James Comey Triggered the Plamegate Investigation
Comey took less than a month. It turned out that Ashcroft and his aides were not eager to have Ashcroft retain authority for the leak investigation. It was bad politics and could harm Aschforft’s own political standing—and he still dreamed of running for office again. Comey discussed the case with Ashcroft, and on December 30, 2003, he called a surprise press conference to announce that in “an abundance of caution,” Ashcroft and he had decided that the attorney general and his entire personal staff should recuse themselves. And there was more news: Comey was turning over the case to his close friend Patrick Fitzgerald, the US attorney in Chicago. Fitzgerald would assume control as a special counsel. This meant that Fitzgerald would not have report to Comey or anyone else at Justice about this inquiry. Comey was granting Fitzgerald tremendous powers held by no other federal prosecutor in the nation.
…
Comey, in a way, sicced Fitzgerald on the Cheney gang—and allowed Fitzgerald to target Libby for trying to cover up for Cheney.
An interesting read.
Wow, those took forever to post. Sorry for the repetition, I was trying to figure out what the problem was with WordPress. This system sucks…
Gene: My view is similar.
What I found useful in defining the role of management at every level has been the idea of time horizons and scope of context.
Individual workers have a narrow scope of context, they do an individual job and only see to the edge of it; its direct interfaces to other jobs. Their time-horizons (time to delivery) depend upon their profession, but are relatively short term.
Their manager needs to see their work in a larger context, because he is managing several jobs that need to fit together. He also needs to (mentally) be well ahead of them in time, anticipating what they will need, scheduling their work (and time off), and working to address roadblocks (financing, supplies, materials, equipment they will need, services they will need) before his workers are stopped by them.
The manager is half servant to his charges, clearing the path ahead of them so their progress is unimpeded and what they need to make progress magically appears as they need it. But the manager is also half director of his charges, because it is his job to see the larger picture of how all their work will fit together, and assigning tasks and solving problems so the whole comes together on time and all the pieces fit and interface without error.
Stepping up the ladder, the same is true for the manager’s boss, just a wider scope of context, and a longer time horizon. By the time we get to the top of a company, the scope of context is how the company fits into the market and its competitive positions; and the time horizon is measured in years. But the job is still half servant, half director.
I think a line worker can know more about the job than their manager, but I think the manager has to understand the worker’s job well enough to anticipate their obstacles and requirements, and to be able to recognize incompetence, competence, and superior performance (both in time and quality).
This is my view, anyway, and it has served me well.
Gene: Much the same as my view. What I found useful as an organizational principle for managers throughout the company has been the idea of time horizons and scope of context.
Individual workers have a narrow scope of context, they do an individual job and only see what is outside that job if it directly impacts their job. Their time-horizons (time to delivery) depend upon their profession, but are relatively short term.
Gene: Much the same as my view. What I found useful as an organizational principle for managers throughout the company has been the idea of time horizons and scope of context.
Individual workers have a narrow scope of context, they do an individual job and only see what is outside that job if it directly impacts their job. Their time-horizons (time to delivery) depend upon their profession, but are relatively short term.
Their manager needs to see their work in a larger context, because he is managing several jobs that need to fit together. He also needs to (mentally) be well ahead of them in time, anticipating what they will need, scheduling their work (and time off), and working to address roadblocks (financing, supplies, materials, equipment they will need, services they will need) before his workers are stopped by them.
The manager is half servant to his charges, clearing the path ahead of them so their progress is unimpeded and what they need to make progress magically appears as they need it. But the manager is also half director of his charges, because it is his job to see the larger picture of how all their work will fit together, and assigning tasks and solving problems so the whole comes together on time and all the pieces fit and interface without error.
Stepping up the ladder, the same is true for the manager’s boss, just a wider scope of context, and a longer time horizon. By the time we get to the top of a company, the scope of context is how the company fits into the market and its competitive positions; and the time horizon is measured in years. But the job is still half servant, half director.
I think a line worker can know more about the job than their manager, but I think the manager has to understand the worker’s job well enough to anticipate their obstacles and requirements, and to be able to recognize incompetence, competence, and superior performance (both in time and quality).
This is my view, anyway, and it has served me well.
Gene: Much the same as my view. What I found useful as an organizational principle for managers throughout the company has been the idea of time horizons and scope of context.
Individual workers have a narrow scope of context, they do an individual job and only see what is outside that job if it directly impacts their job. Their time-horizons (time to delivery) depend upon their profession, but are relatively short term.
Their manager needs to see their work in a larger context, because he is managing several such contexts that need to fit together. He also needs to (mentally) be well ahead of them in time, anticipating what they will need, scheduling their work (and time off), and working to address roadblocks (financing, supplies, materials, equipment they will need, services they will need) before they are stopped by them. The manager is half servant to his charges, clearing the path ahead of them so their progress is unimpeded and what they need to make progress magically appears as they need it. But the manager is also half director of his charges, because it is his job to see the larger picture of how all their work will fit together, and assigning tasks and solving problems so the whole comes together on time and all the pieces fit and interface without error.
Stepping up the ladder, the same is true for the manager’s boss, just a wider scope of context, and a longer time horizon. By the time we get to the top of a company, the scope of context is how the company fits into the market and its competitive positions; and the time horizon is measured in years. But the job is still half servant, half director.
I think a line worker can know more about the job than their manager, but I think the manager has to understand the worker’s job well enough to anticipate their obstacles and requirements, and to be able to recognize incompetence, competence, and superior performance (both in time and quality).
This is my view, anyway, and it has served me well.
Gene H.
If, upon my filing a RICO Indictment of Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital, Romney & Gang; that I’m blessed enough by G-d’s universe to survive and get our eToys company back (which they stole).
Then please do remind me of this day and that comment.
Would enjoy hiring that “In re management” mindset
(as long as you are able to put into practice – the premise).
I’m going to go with Nal and raff on this one, Mark. Comey may be personable and all that, but stand or no, the bottom line is he was ineffective at preventing some of the more egregious abuses of the Bush Administration when he was in a prime position to be throwing monkey wrenches.
___________
Mike,
In re management. I never understood the mindset of the clueless manager and I’ve seen more than one in my time as well. In my management positions, if I hadn’t designed the process from the ground up, I always made it my first job to find out what everyone did and why they did it that way. You can’t design process improvements without that information and to my mind you’re not doing your job as a manager if you aren’t improving processes and helping your staff do their jobs better or more efficiently.
“In re management. I never understood the mindset of the clueless manager and I’ve seen more than one in my time as well.”
Gene,
Working in a large bureaucracy (20,000 employees, $30 billion budget) I worked my way up from caseworker to upper management, so I knew all the steps along the way. Actually for my first ten years I was just a hippie caseworker and Union militant. I didn’t take my future seriously until I realized that many of my hippie friends had moved on in their careers. That’s when I got my Masters and trained as a therapist. Actually, my prior therapy was a big assist in my learning to take myself seriously and embark on a real career.
I give that as background to my observations of managerial style. There were a few managerial types and sub-types I noticed as my career progressed:
1. The Ass Kisser who flattered those above them, passive aggressively treated those on their level and sadistically treated those below (on the org chart).
2 The political appointee who generally fell into three, or more sub-types:
2.a. Someone from outside the Agency who was active in their field so
knew the work.
2.b. The relative of someone politically connected.
3.c. Someone who was politically connected currently.
3. Someone who had worked their way up via intelligence and effort.
The Ass Kisser was always a bad manager in their treatment of people and in their understanding of the job. Their main interest was in achieving the next level and blaming all problems on subordinates. They were hated, but feared by their workers, who responded by doing their jobs mechanically without enthusiasm.
The Political appointee types ranged from clueless, but trying to exert their
authority, to competent because they worked hard, to letting their employees advice guide them, but ultimately receiving all the credit.
In number 3 you get the career civil servants who not only were good at the work, but were generally highly intelligent people. Having worked their way up they understood the job and had understanding for those they came to lead. On such person I knew was a woman who had started at an entry level and worked her way up to be Commissioner, a job I think she still holds. She was one of the sharpest and most intelligent people I ever met and I was proud to work for her even though she was relatively young compared to me.
I think there are direct analogies to it in the business world and to any large corporation. In truth I’ve just scratched the surface of this and while I could take it from the anecdotal (my experiences) to the general (in terms of large organizations) in a guest blog perhaps, I’m not sure I could do it justice even in that space. Too many nuances to cover in even 4,000 words.
EXCUSSSEEEE ME!
Though I do concur that Hillary is a better choice than Chrisitie or Bush Jeb’ee – to count down and out Mr. Biden;
would be unwise….
Mark,
If Mr. Comey did take a stand, we would have found out about the same way we found out about the stand he took in the hospital room. As Nal has suggested, he has other skeletons in the closet. I would like to see someone who will stand for the rule of law, even if it would be difficult to confirm him. Heck, Reagan would be tough to get confirmed for any position in the Obama administration.
It’s unfortunate that Obama may have to leave office in 2017, but since real americans support “continuity in government”, I think we can all rest comfortably and take solace in the knowledge that Mrs. Clinton’s mantra, like that of LBJ’s, will include the words “let us continyuh”.
Yeah – well – Mespo, I’ve got first hand experience with the FBI, recordings of phone calls, dates, times and threats. Even confessions from counsels in public docket records.
When you are directly connected to such – it is a “BIASED” Opine – and therefore suspect – at best.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174585/two-crucial-questions-james-comey
“Quite a bit of attention has already been paid to Comey’s role in warrantless surveillance by the federal government, which expanded dramatically while he was at the Justice Department. Specifically, we’ve repeatedly heard how Comey, along with then–Attorney General John Ashcroft and current FBI Director Robert Mueller, stood up to Bush and then–White House counsel Alberto Gonzales over their warrantless surveillance of Americans. The men threatened to resign en masse if Bush didn’t scale back that program.
Comey’s heroism in that case forced Bush to stand down, for which Comey and the others deserve due credit. But don’t be confused—warrantless surveillance didn’t stop because of that episode. Bush just agreed to make an as-yet-unknown modification to warrantless surveillance, which continued. (His administration ended the program three years later, and returned to seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act courts.)
So Comey was essentially on board with federal surveillance outside the FISA court system, just not this particular abuse of it—and as Glenn Greenwald points out in an excellent column, Comey was actually one of the ones who authorized warrantless surveillance in the first place.
This should be disqualifying for the top law enforcement officer in the land. But at the very least, it presents very fertile territory for senators on the intelligence committee to press Comey, and by extension the administration, on the propriety of federal surveillance, which is no doubt continuing with dubious legal justification.
Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have repeatedly raised these concerns, specifically regarding how the government and the FISA courts have interpreted Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. While not able to reveal the classified information they are privy to, the two senators have suggested that massive and improper surveillance of Americans is continuing. This was a letter they sent to Attorney General Eric Holder in 2011:
We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn’t know what its government thinks the law says.”
(From “Two Crucial Questions for James Comey” by George Zornick)
=======
What’s taking place will “shock the conscience” of most Americans, especially when the full truth of it is known.
Does Comey know? And what role, if any, did he play?
What Comey did in that hospital room was good but it is way over blown. What courage did it take? The act was illegal on many fronts. What kind of courage does it take to stop a plan to help the US spy on Americans and thereby break the law? And if he lost his job his boss Ashcroft would have to go too. There was no downside to Comey. Fired or not he stood to gain personally.
The real issue that needs looked at is what he did when he represented a major defense contractor against our government. Comey led the team that fought the lawsuits brought by our government during his tenure. Where was Mr. Comey’s public announcement that ANY of these cases had merit and that the taxpayer was wronged and even put in danger?
My biggest problem is with Mr. Comey going to a defense contractor at all. It would be virtually impossible for anyone to be the lead counsel for a defense contractor, for several years, and not become aware of something where the company was harming people or the government. A real and true ethical servant of the people wouldn’t entertain an offer from those companies for a second. Comey’s doing so show his ethics are anything other than pure and that he can be paid to put them to the side.
Courage would be Mr. Comey telling the public about EVERY misdeed he is aware of at any defense company. In spite of his non-disclosure agreement. What is he going to do if he heads the FBI – turn a blind eye to the issues he knows about? Imagine the head of the FBI not telling the Department of Justice Civil Division, the organization pursuing these lawsuits, about ANY information that would help them or even alerting them to things they are not aware of. The conflict of interest here is MASSIVE.
I must have missed the part where mespo talked about Comey’s role in the Jose Padilla case: Greenwald
Another of the most controversial acts of the Bush administration was the due-process-free imprisonment of US citizen Jose Padilla, who was arrested in 2002 on US soil, then put in a military brig, without charges, for 3 1/2 years. During that time, he was denied a lawyer, held incommunicado, and tortured.
…
it was James Comey who took a leading role in the Bush administration in defending that lawless imprisonment
Regarding “swipes”:
It’s more critique of argumentation skills than a swipe. -mespo
Right.
Well there you have it.
Well said by Mike Appleton.
Whether Mr. Comey is an honorable man is an issue concerning which I have absolutely no knowledge, although I have no reason to question mespo’s judgment. However, I have not changed my views that the legal justifications for waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” were critically flawed, self-serving and intended purely to provide political cover. Those individuals who participated in the process of providing that legal justification, regardless of the moral abhorrence they may have privately expressed at the time, should not have a role in an administration that has repeatedly assured us of its commitment to the rule of law. That includes Mr. Comey.
ap:
It’s just that emphasizing one point to the exclusion of another contrary point by the same author (who is offering balance to the story) is a disservice to the author — and to your argument (if you’re basing it on that). Sure we could read the article (as I did) but why cast the piece in a false light just to see if we catch it? Seems a bit disingenuous. It’s more critique of argumentation skills than a swipe. I see politicians do it all the time to their detriment.