That the Executive branch aimed it extortionist tactics at Yahoo rather than putting the Justice Department's energy (and taxpayer money) solely toward defending the government's position in court is sadly consistent with the way the Executive branch has responded to countless challenges to its claims of expansive authority.

Fining Yahoo for challenging an objectionable surveillance order is the corporate equivalent of subpoenaing New York Times reporter James Risen to testify about his sources and threatening bankrupting fines unless he complies.

We see the same sort of avoidance of the substantive matter constantly when anyone (individual or corporation) challenges the Executive branch. Instead of releasing the memo authorizing drone strikes on American citizens and defending the substantive analysis, the Executive branch gives propagandist speeches and leaks selective portions to the press. Rather than address the massive fraud, waste, abuse and illegality brought to light by NSA whistleblowers Thomas Drake, Bill Binney, J. Kirk Wiebe, Diane Roark and Edward Loomis, the Justice Department accused them of violating the Espionage Act, and prosecuted Drake.

The message from the Executive branch bullying is the same: stand in the way of the surveillance state, and the government will punish you. The best place to hit an individual is with possible imprisonment and the best place to hit a corporation like Yahoo is in the pocketbook.

Even in the beat-the-drums discussions about military action in Syria, the President has essentially claimed authority to engage in military action without Congressional approval.



The cowardice in Congress, never to be underestimated, is outrageous. Some lawmakers have made it known that they would rather not face a war authorization vote shortly before midterm elections, saying they’d rather sit on the fence for a while to see whether an expanded military campaign starts looking like a success story or a debacle.

The timing is hits Congress where politicians are most vulnerable - votes: Rather than convince Congress to approve his actions, the President says he doesn't need Congress, a convenient statement for politicians wanting to avoid a controversy on the eve of mid-term elections.

The use of fines, secrecy, subpoenas, and trumped up criminal prosecutions to punish individuals or groups who question government actions should make us uncomfortable. The tactics chill the dissent and public participation essential to a functioning democracy and enshrined in the First Amendment. And, the tactics pose an unsettling question: what government action is so untoward, so potentially damaging if exposed, that the government is determined to dodge public scrutiny at every turn, avoid court and congressional oversight and relentlessly punish any challenger, rather than simply explaining itself to the people?