Studies in Perversion

No, it's not about same-sex marriage, it's about the Bush administration's philosophy -- if we can call it that -- of governance. This post by David Kurtz at TPM explicates a case in point, based on a commentary by Marty Lederman. From Lederman:

As I've previously written, the pattern is by now very familiar. Whenever the Administration begins to do something of dubious legality, it:

1. sends to Congress messengers who the Intel committees trust -- solemn, serious, professionals, often uniformed military officers

2. to inform a very select, small number of legislators of the conduct -- legislators who have developed close and trusted relationships with the intel officials briefing them and who are, quite understandably, loathe to undermine such relationships, which do, after all, facilitate trust, access, and oversight itself

3. and to provide such briefings after the conduct has commenced

4. in a highly classified setting

5. putting the conduct in its best possible light -- in particular, making sure to insist that it has prevented terrorist attacks

6. while assuring the legislators that it has been vetted by the lawyers and is legal

7. without showing the legislators the legal analysis supporting the conduct

8. without disclosing the legal arguments that cut the other way

9. without informing the legislators of any policy-based or legal dissent within the executive branch

10. while warning the legislators that they may not legally breathe a word of it to anyone -- certainly not to staff, or their fellow legislators, nor to experts outside Congress who might be able to better assess the legality and efficacy of the conduct

11. and while insisting that the legislators cannot second-guess the need for classification and secrecy, even in cases -- such as with respect to OLC opinions concerning what techniques are lawful and which are not, and with respect to conduct that has been revealed to the enemy already -- where there is no legitimate justification for the classification.

On this last point, does anyone besides me remember a couple-three years ago when the administration began classifying documents and information that were in the public domain?

Kurtz continues in the same vein with Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence.

It starts, Lederman notes, with sending to Congress "messengers who the Intel committees trust -- solemn, serious, professionals, often uniformed military officers." That's McConnell to a T.

In his first months as DNI, McConnell did plenty to undermine that rep. He told Congress that three German terrorism suspects had been arrested due to intercepts made possible by the then-new Protect America Act when in fact they were obtained under the old FISA law. Soon after, McConnell offered a especially misleading account to Congress of a supposed FISA Court ruling that had delayed the U.S. from spying on the kidnappers of U.S. troops in Iraq. And throughout congressional debate on a surveillance law he claimed that the debate itself endangered American lives.

Then earlier this year, he suggested that a questioner at a public event at Johns Hopkins was "disappointed" that the U.S. hadn't suffered additional terrorist attacks. And now McConnell has really let lose, framing the Senate debate on the surveillance bill as being between those who think "we shouldn't have an Intelligence Community" and those who do. That has prompted a letter from Sen. Russ Feingold demanding an apology for those false characterizations of the debate.

The reason this post is titled "Studies in Perversion" is just simply because that is the standard Bush operating procedure: take people who have spent their careers building up reputations for integrity -- David Petraeus, Mike McConnell, Michael Mukasey -- and either scare them or bribe them to use those reputations to subvert the system that has created them. I can't imagine what McConnell is getting out of this, although the word is that Petraeus has always been a yes-man. I guess the indicator is that if Bush is even considering these people for appointment, he has a handle on them somehow.

McConnell's framing of the debate, related by Kurtz, typifies the syndrome perfectly: any questioning of the administration's activities is treason.

It's easy to overstate the role of individual personalities in politics, but it's probably no accident that the sheen of McConnell's reputation has dulled just about the same time as House Dems have stood up to the White House on the surveillance bill.