An entertaining (and pretty damn accurate) annual list of the year's worst people, from The Beast.

Full list of 50.

Top 10:

10. Alberto Gonzales

Crimes: The most truckling, amoral flunky to ever serve as Attorney General. A jurisprudent organelle, he manifests no concept of the law independent of its expediency to the president. Would smilingly accuse himself of providing material support to al Qaeda at President Bush's request, hurriedly plead guilty, sign his own death warrant and flip the switch himself. His testimony before congressional committees is to public service what cholera is to the small intestine. As first Hispanic Attorney General, Gonzo typifies the self-betrayal and ethical compromise necessary for minorities to become successful Republicans. Been felching sweet approval from Bush's lily-white ass since Texas. A conscienceless, memo-drafting, loophole-crafting liar for hire, pushing for all the worst administration policies, including nixing habeas corpus, denying and then defending rendition, torture, political firings, and a ton of other evil stuff. He even visited a seriously ill and disoriented John Ashcroft at the hospital, attempting to coax him into reauthorizing a clearly illegal wiretapping program. The only Attorney General who ever could have made John Ashcroft a sympathetic character by contrast.

Exhibit A: "The fact that the Constitution -- again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away."

Sentence: Death by dull guillotine, head bent by Beckham.

9. You

Charges: You believe in freedom of speech, until someone says something that offends you. You suddenly give a damn about border integrity, because the automated voice system at your pharmacy asked you to press 9 for Spanish. You cling to every scrap of bullshit you can find to support your ludicrous belief system, and reject all empirical evidence to the contrary. You know the difference between patriotism and nationalism -- it's nationalism when foreigners do it. You hate anyone who seems smarter than you. You care more about zygotes than actual people. You love to blame people for their misfortunes, even if it means screwing yourself over. You still think Republicans favor limited government. Your knowledge of politics and government are dwarfed by your concern for Britney Spears' children. You think buying Chinese goods stimulates our economy. You think you're going to get universal health care. You tolerate the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques." You think the government is actually trying to improve education. You think watching CNN makes you smarter. You think two parties is enough. You can't spell. You think $9 trillion in debt is manageable. You believe in an afterlife for the sole reason that you don't want to die. You think lowering taxes raises revenue. You think the economy's doing well. You're an idiot.

Exhibit A: You couldn't get enough Anna Nicole Smith coverage.

Sentence: A gradual decline into abject poverty as you continue to vote against your own self-interest. Death by an easily treated disorder that your health insurance doesn't cover. You deserve it, chump.

8. Michael Chertoff

Charges: Looks and acts like a man who sleeps in a coffin. As the head, or should we say skull, of our latest redundant security bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, Chertoff used 2007 to further Rumsfeld's purportedly defunct policy of "Total Information Awareness," ordering U.S. military satellites be trained on American soil for first time in history. Beyond that, DHS seems to function as a corruption farm, spending billions on programs that either don't work or are never implemented, often lobbied for by former DHS employees. If the terror threat really is as dire as Chertoff says, then he is criminally negligent.

Exhibit A: Habitually references his "gut feeling" that the next terror attack is imminent.

Sentence: Gut feeling is actually stomach cancer.

7. Erik Prince

Charges: Priming Baghdad's streets for American imperialism by making them pristinely wog-free. Prince's Iraq is one massive free-fire zone for his bullet-sweating mercenaries, a Hogan's Alley in which everyone dusky is blithely expendable, rape is a mischievous dalliance, and accountability an inside joke. Remarkably, enabling the US occupation and simultaneously fomenting destabilizing enmity. Bringing the privatization of warfare to full fruition -- next time, Exxon can just invade a country directly.

Exhibit A: Blackwater Vice Chairman Cofer Black is Mitt Romney's campaign counterterrorism policy adviser. The company's website also hawks infant onesies.

Sentence: Tanned and tethered outside Baghdad's Green Zone after curfew. Whatever happens, happens.

6. Rudy Giuliani

Charges: 9/11 Tourette's syndrome, compounded by compulsive lying. Despite the '93 WTC bombing, didn't act to put all first responders on the same radio frequency and chose to house his Emergency Command Center on the 23rd floor of WTC 7. Giuliani Partners consulting firm routinely did business with a Qatar ministry run by royal Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani, a man whose farm has seen guests the likes of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and Osama bin Laden. Wooed mistress and future wife with an NYPD chauffeur and trips to Southampton on NYC taxpayers' dime. Ruined the prospect of a Times Square tug-job.

Exhibit A: Stages phone calls from his wife during campaign stops-to show 'em he's got family values. Family values apparently do not include rudimentary put-it-on-vibrate cell phone etiquette. Invoked 9/11 to explain this.

Sentence: Victim of the next 9/11, which consists of two radio-controlled hobby planes smashing into his face.

5. Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid

Charges: Graduates of the Neville Chamberlain school of appeasement, the Democratic leadership continues to ignore the constitution-and the American people-by keeping impeachment "off the table" and refusing to defund the war. True pushovers, they're too stupid, cowardly, weak and outmatched politically to accomplish anything substantive, their "strategy" essentially boiling down to whining a lot while handing Bush whatever the hell he wants. There is just no way that appearing this weak and ineffectual could be any better for them politically than impeachment. Everything that the White House gets away with, it gets away with because congress allows it.

Exhibit A: Failure to woo the two thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto is moot: They could defund the war with a 41-senator budgetary filibuster. But that would take guts and conviction.

Sentence: 2 cups anthrax bisque.

4. Seung-Hui Cho

Charges: A useless fucking nerd who shot a bunch of better people because he couldn't get laid. Take note, all you pent-up losers out there: If you think you're about to go on a murderous rampage, either take up a drug habit, find a hooker, or just kill yourself. Your inability to cope with a comfortable life in a developed nation is nobody else's fault, except maybe your parents. Nothing says "I have a tiny penis" like a douchebag taking pictures of himself with a gun.

Exhibit A: Cho's infamous "disturbing" stories are only disturbing in how completely terrible they are, but now every kid with an imagination is going to be hauled off to the nuthouse if he expresses himself.

Sentence: Used as kindling at bonfire kegger for rich, popular kids.

3. Fred Phelps

Charges: Leads a picketing campaign so hyperoffensive that his Church is unanimously reviled by queers and Bible thumping homophobes alike. Along with daughter Shirley, will drag hate into the public spotlight wherever it might seem least helpful or appropriate as long as it garners his "cause" attention. Harasses widows of heterosexual soldiers at funerals because their beloved were employed by a government that does not stone fags. Torments loved ones of those murdered in anti-gay violence. Is almost definitely gay himself.

Exhibit A: He is such an effective, soul-sucking brainwasher that Fred's granddaughter declines relationships because of her delusion that world will end in her lifetime.

Sentence: Finally comes out of closet and is immediately killed by his followers.

2. Dick Cheney

Charges: Worst president ever. So openly horrible, he now makes jokes about being Darth Vader. Unashamedly advocating for executive abuse of power and corporate theft. In and out of public office since his congressional internship during the Nixon Administration. Didn't care about the quagmire he foresaw in '94, because since then he'd deftly maneuvered to profit from it. Polling lower than HPV.

Exhibit A: His Halliburton stock rose 3000% in 2007. No joke.

Punishment: Raped by the sun.

1. George W. Bush

Charges: Is it a civil rights milestone to have a retarded president? Maybe it would be, if he were ever legitimately elected. You can practically hear the whole nation holding its breath, hoping this guy will just fucking leave come January '09 and not declare martial law. Only supporters left are the ones who would worship a fucking turnip if it promised to kill foreigners. Is so clearly not in charge of his own White House that his feeble attempts to define himself as "decider" or "commander guy" are the equivalent of a five-year-old kid sitting on his dad's Harley and saying "vroom vroom!" Has lost so many disgusted staffers that all he's left with are the kids from Jesus Camp. The first president who is so visibly stupid he can say "I didn't know what was in the National Intelligence Estimate until last week" and sound plausible. Inarguably a major criminal and a much greater threat to the future of America than any Muslim terrorist.

Exhibit A: "And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it."

Sentence: Dismembered, limbs donated to injured veterans.

---

Written by Allan Uthman, Ian Murphy, Paul Jones and Tyler Bass

Illustrations by Ian Murphy

They're not mad about the content of the Energy Bill-- the billions of dollars being wasted in tax breaks to oil companies that are making $40 Billion a year, the minimal investment in renewable energy R&D, the lack of a renewable energy mandate...  They're mad at the kind of car that the bill rode in. 

That's right-- two Congress members who voted against the Energy Bill because it actually included the first increases in fuel economy since the Arab Oil Embargo of the 70's, are now upset that the car that delivered the Energy Bill to the White House for Bush's signature was a Japanese Hybrid. 

Prius’ role in energy bill angers lawmakers

Paperwork was transported by Japanese-built hybrid to the White House

updated 5:12 p.m. PT, Thurs., Dec. 20, 2007

WASHINGTON - When Congress sent an energy bill to President Bush for his signature, it arrived in a Japanese-built Toyota Prius hybrid — a move that rubbed two Michigan Republicans the wrong way.

"It is a huge slap in the face, calculated I believe, just to demonstrate their complete disregard for the domestic auto industry," said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich.

To Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., it was a "slap in the face of every American auto worker."

They said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., could have provided the same symbolism by sending the bill Wednesday in a U.S.-built hybrid made by Ford Motor Co. or General Motors Corp.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, said the Republicans were "merely attempting to distract from the success of the Democratic energy security legislation" and noted that 95 House Republicans supported the bill. He said the bill would encourage the development of hybrids and alternative vehicles.

Hammill said the Prius was owned by an employee with the Office of the Clerk, which sends bills to the White House.

The bill requires that automakers increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

The Prius, the most popular gas-electric hybrid in the United States, gets a combined 46 mpg in city and highway driving. The Prius and the 2008 Honda Civic hybrid, which gets a combined 42 mpg, are the only two hybrids sold in the United States today that would meet the new mileage requirements set for 2020.

Contrast the previous quote with this one:

"And I hear from time to time people say, hey, wait a second.  We have civil liberties we have to worry about.  But don't forget, the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive, and that's what we're going to have to do."
-- Willard Mitt Romney, September 5, 2007

"If it means sacrificing our lives, if it means sacrificing our liberties to save Pakistan, then we are prepared to risk our lives and we are prepared to risk our liberties, but we are not prepared to surrender our great nation to the militants,"
-- Benazir Bhutto.

How's the rest of that refrain go?  Oh yeah...

It looks like 2007 is going out fighting; at minimum it seems as if it's doing its best to ensure that 2008 will start out no more peaceful or hopeful that this year did.

- Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated. 

Despite being a known target who survived a massive blast directed at her in October, the security detail guarding her somehow allowed a man to get close enough to shoot her twice before blowing himself up.  Longtime advisor and confidante Husain Haqqani lays blame with the man who benefits most: Pervez Musharraf.  There is a supposed claim of responsibility from Al Qaeda; it says that the killing was ordered directly by No. 2 Ayman Al-Zawahri.  However it is doubtful that such an attack could've been successful without at least intelligence, if not direct assistance, from the Pakistani Military and Security services, many of who are garrisoned in Rawalpindi where the assassination occurred.  Rawalpindi is just outside of the Capital City of Islamabad, and is within miles of the disputed territory of Kashmir.

Musharraf has called for three days of mourning.  I suspect that he will, within days, make two additional announcements that he has long wanted regardless of today's events: the suspension of January's scheduled elections, and; a re-imposition of martial law.

Bush, delivered a brief, and according to the AP account, tense statement to reporters today:

"The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy," he said. "Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice."

He took no questions.

- Naturally, the Bush Administration is expanding the presence of US Special Forces inside Pakistan. 

- Also, Russia is selling Iran sophisticated air missile defense systems. 

- Meanwhile, Turkey continues it's bombing campaign in Northern Iraq.  At what point do we call the Iraq war what it is (and what those opposed to the war warned it could be): a regional conflagration?

- In other paradoxical Iraq news, the US Military is apparently at war with Muqtada Al-Sadr.  Muqtada Al-Sadr is one of the most powerful Shiite clerics in Iraq, and one of the most influential voices in the Shiite-dominated government of Nouri Al-Maliki, who is consistently supported by President Bush.  Figure that one out. 

- Have we always been at war with Eastasia?  Or was that Eurasia?  Either way, it's costing us $15 Billion a month.

- Military families aren't buying it anymore: A majority of family members of US Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines think Bush is doing a shitty job. 

- War Crimes Watch: The White House is terrified of what Jose Rodriguez might say to Congress if he gets immunity.  Rodriguez is the former head of the CIA's clandestine service, and has been fingered by the White House as the person responsible for destroying videos that documented the interrogation, and torture, of prisoners in US custody. 

- 141,387 American's have signed on to Rep. Robert Wexler’s (D-FL) online petition demanding congressional impeachment hearings for Vice President Dick Cheney.

- Consolidated debt obligation write-off forecast for this quarter:

• Citigroup - $18.7 billion.
  
• Merrill Lynch - $11.5 billion.
  
• JPMorgan Chase & Co. -  $33 billion.

- Is TimeWarner-- the world's largest media conglomerate, really going to sell AOL and Time Media?

- The Bush Administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rules that employers can eliminate retirement benefits for their oldest retirees.  They'll be fine, right?  The primary cost driver?  What else-- health care.  Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have risen 78% since 2001. 

- In other statistical news, 60% of all executions in the United States in 2007 took place in Texas.  I'd wager that most Texans are actually proud of that.

- There was some good news today: Paris Hilton's planned inheritance will be given to charity instead.

After berating Congress for weeks for not giving him the $190 Billion he originally wanted for the war in Iraq, President Bush-- in the usual late-Friday afternoon, avoid-as-much-press-as-possible style we've grown accustomed to-- cut Medicaid payments to schools.  Schools.  Not only that, but he did it in defiance of Congress.

According to the Washington Post, “the Bush administration eliminated about $700 million a year in Medicaid reimbursements to schools, sidestepping an attempt by Congress to block such a move.”

Issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the new rule is projected to save the federal government $3.6 billion over five years, transferring those costs to school districts.

Lawmakers this week passed legislation to place a six-month moratorium on Medicaid implementing the rule change, but President Bush had not signed the bill.

A wide range of medical services, such as speech and physical therapy, are furnished to students in schools. Medicaid, the government's health insurance program for the poor, will continue to pay for those services for low-income children.

But the new rule will restrict when schools can bill the federal government for clerical work associated with providing health care. For example, schools can no longer expect Medicaid reimbursement for planning student immunizations. Schools also will not get paid for transporting students getting speech or physical therapy to school or back home.

Hundreds of people, most of them opposed to the change, commented in writing to CMS on the proposal. School principals and superintendents said that the loss of the funding could mean that schools would have to cut back on other programs.

CMS officials said that those comments validated their concern that schools were improperly using Medicaid funding to pay for services "that are clearly educational in nature."

The silver lining here is that this serves as just another example of the stark choice Americans will face next November.  Who do we want in charge?  Republicans or Democrats?  Do we want to spend our money on war, or health care for kids?  I think that's a contrast that Democrats look forward to talking about. 

Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe submitted to the leading presidential candidates a questionnaire asking their views on 12 key questions regarding executive power.  All of the leading Democrats -- Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Clinton, Richardson and Obama -- submitted responses, as did Mitt Romney, John McCain and Ron Paul.

Revealingly, Giuliani, Thompson and Huckabee all refused to answer the questionnaire.

Of those that did answer, all gave opposed the Bush/Cheney "unitary executive" model of Presidential power.  All, that is, except for Mitt Romney.

Cliff Notes version: If you liked George Bush's and Dick Cheney's take on Presidential Power and the Constitution, you'll LOVE President Mitt Romney:

Mitt Romney Q&A

By Charlie Savage Globe Staff / December 20, 2007

1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

Intelligence and surveillance have proven to be some of the most effective national security tools we have to protect our nation. Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive and the President should not hesitate to use every legal tool at his disposal to keep America safe.

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

A President must always act in the best interests of the United States to protect us against a potential threat, including a nuclear Iran. Naturally, it is always preferable to seek agreement of all – leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world – where those circumstances are available.

3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?

The founders created a constitutional system in which the war power was divided between the President and Congress. A President must respect the constitutional design while at the same time remain faithful to commander-in-chief powers and obligations to keep this country safe.

4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?

I share the view of many past presidents that signing statements are an important presidential practice.

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

All US citizens are entitled to due process, including at least some type of habeas corpus relief regardless whether they are designated unlawful enemy combatants or not.

6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?

Courts have recognized that there is a valid need for protecting communications among high government officials and those who advise and assist them. Before invoking the privilege, a President should carefully weigh, among other factors, the interest in disclosure and the interest in preserving the confidentiality of deliberations and advice in the Executive Branch. As an institutional matter, the President must also protect the prerogatives of his Office for future presidents.

7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?

A President should decline to reveal the method and duration of interrogation techniques to be used against high value terrorists who are likely to have counter-interrogation training. This discretion should extend to declining to provide an opinion as to whether Congress may validly limit his power as to the use of a particular technique, especially given Congress’s current plans to try to do exactly that.

8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?

The President must carry out all of his duties in a manner consistent with the rule of law, whether it is our Constitution or valid international agreements, so long as they do not impinge upon the President’s constitutional authority.

9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?

The availability and limitation of habeas corpus is governed by current federal statutory law and the Suspension Clause of the US Constitution, Article I, § 9, cl. 2.

10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

The Bush Administration has kept the American people safe since 9/11. The Administration’s strong view on executive power may well have contributed to that fact.

11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?

The campaign receives legal advice from members of the Romney for President Advisory Committee on the Constitution and the Courts, which is comprised of some of our nation’s top constitutional scholars and legal experts.

12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?

These are important questions that each candidate for President should carefully consider with the benefit of advice from legal, diplomatic, and military experts.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

Glenn Greenwald's take-- as usual-- is spot on:

Just go and read what he wrote. It's extraordinary.  Other than his cursory and quite creepy concession that U.S. citizens detained by the President are entitled to "at least some type of habeas corpus relief" -- whatever "some type" might mean (Question 5) -- Romney does not recognize a single limit on presidential power. Not one.

And even with regard to his grudging allowance that American citizens should have "some type of habeas relief," Romney -- and only he -- implicitly endorses Alberto Gonzales' bizarre claim that -- despite the clear language of Article I, Section 9 -- "nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus" (Question 9). Under this twisted Romney/Gonzales view, the right of habeas corpus -- which Thomas Jefferson described as "one of the essential principles of our government" and "the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution" -- is not constitutionally guaranteed to Americans but can be revoked at any time, for any reason.

In every area, Romney explicitly says that neither laws nor treaties can limit the President's conduct. Instead, displaying the fear-mongering cowardice that lies at the heart of Bush/Cheney Republican power, Romney described the root of his view of the world this way: "Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive."

Romney recited that cowardly platitude -- what has now become the shameful flagship of the Republican Party -- in response to being asked whether the President has the power to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants even in the face of a law that makes it a crime to do so.  At its core, the defining principle of the Republican Party continues to be a fear-driven repudiation of the American ethos as most famously expressed by Patrick Henry, all in service of keeping the citizenry in fear so the President can rule without limits.

These are just some of the powers which Romney -- and, among the respondents, Romney alone -- claimed the President possesses, either by explicitly claiming them or refusing to repudiate them when asked directly:

* to eavesdrop on Americans with no warrants, even if doing so is in violation of Congressional law (Question 1);

* to attack Iran without Congressional authorization, even in the absence of an imminent threat (Question 2);

* to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops (Question 3);

* to issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass laws enacted by Congress (Question 4);

* to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified where said treaties, in his view, "impinge upon the President's constitutional authority" (Question 8)

Even more disturbing were the specific questions Romney refused to answer. When asked if the President has the right to use "interrogation techniques" that Congress, by law, has prohibited in all circumstances, here is what Romney said (Question 7):

A President should decline to reveal the method and duration of interrogation techniques to be used against high value terrorists who are likely to have counter-interrogation training. This discretion should extend to declining to provide an opinion as to whether Congress may validly limit his power as to the use of a particular technique, especially given Congress's current plans to try to do exactly that.

Mitt Romney is running for President and proudly refuses to say if he would obey the law regarding torture. Worse, he's citing national security as an excuse for refusing to answer the question. He's not even President yet, and he's already insisting that it's too Top Secret for him even to participate in the debate over the President's duties to abide by the law. Even considering where our country has been taken with these matters, that's an astonishing assertion -- that the Terrorists will win if Mitt Romney expresses his views on whether the President must obey the law.

More on Mitt's Monarchal vision of the Presidency, as well as the saner (and Constitutionally faithful) takes of the other candidates, here, and here.

Vice-President and War Criminal Dick Cheney once again shows who is really setting policy in Washington.

From Think Progress:

Dick Cheney is like an bizarro-world super hero. 

Wherever there is a fossil fuel-related industry to protect, he'll be there.  Wherever there is a nationalized commodity market in need of western capital access, he'll be there.  Wherever there is a downtrodden multi-billion dollar corporation in need of defense against the will of citizens and state governments, he'll be there.  He is... "The Dick".

From Rawstory:

DHS finalizing plans for domestic spy satellite program

Congress has not been updated since civil liberties concerns delayed satellite spying

Nick Juliano
Published: Thursday December 20, 2007

A plan to dramatically widen US law enforcement agencies' access to data from powerful spy satellites is moving toward implementation, as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff expects to finalize a charter for the program this week, according to a new report.

Chertoff insists the scheme to turn spy satellites -- that were originally designed for foreign surveillance -- on Americans is legal, although a House committee that would approve the program has not been updated on the program for three months.

"We still haven't seen the legal framework we requested or the standard operation procedures on how the NAO will actually be run," House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie G. Thompson tells the Wall Street Journal. Thompson was referring to the National Applications Office -- a new DHS subset that would coordinate access to spy-satellite data for non-military domestic agencies, including law enforcement.

Civil liberties concerns delayed the program after lawmakers and outside activists wondered how the program would be structured to protect Americans from unconstitutional surveillance from the powerful satellites, which can see through cloud cover, trees and even concrete buildings.

The program's charter remains unfinalized, but Chertoff said it will use clear language to explain legal restrictions on the data's use. Warrants will be obtained when required before collecting satellite intelligence, and the program won't use technology to intercept verbal communications, according to the Journal.

"One lesson I've learned is it's not enough to say we know what we're doing is going to be OK," Chertoff told the paper in an interview. "We've got to really make it clear to the public that we're doing this, but we're not doing that."

Ah yes-- "really make it clear"-- just like you made it "really clear" that you're only listening to "the terrorists", but in fact you are actually running the entire internet through your servers and data-mining it?  That kind of "really clear"?

"...AT&T is diverting Internet traffic into the hands of the NSA wholesale, in violation of federal wiretapping laws and the Fourth Amendment,"

[...]

"One of the documents listed the equipment installed in the [AT&T] secret room, and this list included a Narus STA 6400, which is a "Semantic Traffic Analyzer". The Narus STA technology is known to be used particularly by government intelligence agencies because of its ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets. The company's advertising boasts that its technology "captures comprehensive customer usage data ... and transforms it into actionable information.... (It) provides complete visibility for all internet applications."

Mr. Chertoff-- did you "really make it clear" that the Bush Administration started this program of domestic surveillance in violation of the Constitution a full SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE 9/11?

Maybe it's not Bush's fault.  Maybe Former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist just didn't "really make it clear" when he asked George W. Bush to recite the following oath on that rainy day back in January of 2001:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Protect and defend the Constitution.  That would be the United States Constitution.  Just so we're "clear".