By the way, we got hints of this in the lead-up to the Bolton hearings. I don't see how anyone, Repub or Dem or Indie, could take any administration's word that they did not abuse this ability after learning that the courts were bypassed, particularly given what we know of how FISA operates (72 hours). Given what we know of this administration, my guess is that they politically targeted some individuals.
Jr to rub America's nose in the .... --------------- Bush launching aggressive defense of eavesdropping WASHINGTON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - The White House is launching an aggressive effort to defend a domestic eavesdropping program prior to congressional hearings that are to delve into whether President George W. Bush overstepped his authority. White House officials said on Friday that Bush will visit the National Security Agency next Wednesday as part of the effort. Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, former head of the NSA, will give a speech at the National Press Club on Monday and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will speak on Tuesday. http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN20177106
Bush may ask Congress to OK domestic spying By Stewart M. Powell HEARST NEWSPAPERS WASHINGTON - President Bush and the nation's No. 2 intelligence official on Monday defended "targeted" post-9/11 domestic spying without court approval, amid hints that the White House may ask Congress for a green light to continue the wiretaps. Bush said he had constitutional and congressional authority to order the National Security Agency to carry out secret surveillance on two-way international communications between individuals in the U.S., including American citizens, and suspected al-Qaida operatives overseas. Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, said NSA eavesdropping was not "a drift net" ensnaring innocent international communications by ordinary Americans. But in a potential U-turn by the Bush administration, Hayden, White House senior counselor Dan Bartlett and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan cracked the door for the first time to the White House asking Congress to revise the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to accommodate "hot pursuit" of fleeting communications by suspected members of al-Qaida -- the ones that are now being targeted by the NSA program without court approval. Officials' first hints that the Bush administration might ask Congress to revise federal prohibitions on domestic surveillance without court approval emerged after Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News Sunday that the White House should seek authorization from Congress. "I know of no member of Congress, frankly, who, if the administration came and said, 'Here's why we need this capability,' that they wouldn't get it," McCain said. Hayden spoke as though the administration were weighing changes. "If we were to do that, I would hope we would do it in such a way that the legitimate debate and legitimate discussions of that step do not betray to the enemy the tactics, techniques and procedures that we are now using to detect them," Hayden said. Bartlett told CBS' News "Early Show" that the White House had explored with congressional leaders the possibility of adjusting FISA at the outset of the program. "We're obviously going to continue to work with Congress," Bartlett said. "We have some hearings coming up (Feb. 6) in the (Senate) Judiciary Committee. We'll continue to work with them." McClellan also suggested the White House may ask Congress to provide legal cover for the NSA program, echoing language that resembled Bartlett. "We will always continue to work closely with Congress on these issues," McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One en route with the president to his appearance at Kansas State University. Democrats continued criticism of the Bush-backed spying. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said Bush had "yet to explain why the secret FISA courts are not good enough or fast enough -- or tell Congress what changes need to be made in the law." Kerry added: "It's time for a real investigation to get to the truth." The remarks by Bush and Hayden were the lead-off in a series of appearances by top administration officials on behalf of the controversial spying program. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales plans to address the issue today in a speech at Georgetown University titled "Intercepting al-Qaida: A Lawful and Necessary Tool for Protecting America." Bush plans a rare visit to NSA headquarters at nearby Fort Meade, Md., on Wednesday. The latest AP-Ipsos nationwide poll completed earlier this month showed that 56 percent of Americans believed the Bush administration should be required to get an electronic surveillance warrant from the federal court before eavesdropping on electronic communications between American citizens and suspected terrorists overseas. http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/13698129.htm
Georgetown University students hold up a sign with their backs turned towards U.S. Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales in protest as he speaks about domestic wiretapping in the United States during an appearance at the university's 'Georgetown National Law Forum' in Washington January 24, 2006. http://news.yahoo.com/photos/sm/events/pl/022805usattorneygen/p:1
So, in 2002, the administration was arguing against changes to FISA, saying FISA worked and changes to the probable cause standard would raise Constitutional issues. They said this even though they were ignoring FISA at the time. Seriously, what more does one need to conclude that the aim of subverting FISA was not to catch terrorists but to use surveillance tools for other, probably political, means? We need to know more about the scope of the program.
And by the way, if Congressional resolutions gave Bush the inherent power to ignore FISA, why did they not make the argument at the time they were rejecting changes to FISA even though they had already started this stuff?
Russ Feingold Challenges Alberto Gonzales' Truthfulness on NSA Surveillance Program Sen. Russ Feingold Monday charged that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales misled the Judiciary Committee at his Senate confirmation hearing on January 6, 2005, when repsonding to questions about the President's authority to order warrantless surveillance. Let's go to the transcript: (Panel I, afternoon transcript of January 6, 2005, available on Lexis.com)
Director of National Security Agency Misled Congress Michael Hayden, director of the National Security Agency, also misled Congress. He told a committee investigating the 9/11 attacks that any surveillance of persons in the United States was done consistent with FISA. From Hayden’s 10/17/02 testimony: GOSS: OK, my second question, then. General Hayden, you said something about bin Laden coming across the bridge, hypothetical, of course. But I take that to mean that if bin Laden did come there would be capabilities that we have that we can use elsewhere in the world that we cannot use in the United States of America. Is that correct? HAYDEN: Not so much capabilities, but how agilely we could apply those capabilities. The person inside the United States becomes a U.S. person under the definition provided by the FISA Act. … Actually, Hayden was pursuing U.S. persons at the direction of the President outside of the FISA statute. Extended transcript:
Specialists doubt legality of wiretaps Many rebut assertion of presidential powers By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | February 2, 2006 WASHINGTON -- Legal specialists yesterday questioned the accuracy of President Bush's sweeping contentions about the legality of his domestic spying program, particularly his assertion in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday that ''previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have." Shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush authorized the National Security Agency to intercept overseas calls from the United States without first seeking a warrant, asserting he had the right to do so under his wartime powers. On Tuesday night, he defended his program by saying past presidents have exerted the same powers. But legal specialists said yesterday that wiretaps ordered by previous presidents were put in place before warrants were required for investigations involving national security. Since Congress passed the law requiring warrants in 1978, no president but Bush has defied it, specialists said. Bush's contention that past presidents did the same thing as he has done ''is either intentionally misleading or downright false," said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor. Only Bush has made the assertion that his wartime powers should supersede an act of Congress, Cole said. Bush repeated his assertions about the legality of his spying program at a speech yesterday in Nashville. The president has been seeking to build public support for the program in advance of Senate hearings into the matter next week. But Bush's comments in the State of the Union, which highlighted a week of election-style campaigning to defend the program, were almost entirely disputed yesterday by legal specialists across the ideological spectrum. For example, Bush strongly implied that if his program had been in place before the terrorist attacks, the government would have identified two of the hijackers who were placing international calls from inside the United States. But the 9/11 Commission found that the government had already grown suspicious about both of the hijackers in question before the attacks took place. Bureaucratic failures to share information about the hijackers, not ignorance of their existence, was the problem, the commission said. Moreover, Bush said in his address that ''appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed" about the program. But Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has said that under law Bush was required to brief all members of the intelligence committees -- not just their leaders, as he did. Bush's assertion that his program was legal prompted a group of 14 prominent law professors, including both liberals and conservatives, to pen a joint letter objecting to his arguments. An expanded version of their letter rebutting Bush's assertions will be released today, the professors said. Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law professor and a member of the group, said he believes the Supreme Court would reject Bush's assertions that his wartime powers authorized him to override the law. ''I find every bit of this legal argument disingenuous," Epstein said. ''The president's position is essentially that [Congress] is not doing the right thing, so I'm going to act on my own." The White House referred all questions about the spying section of Bush's speech to the Justice Department, where spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos acknowledged yesterday that all of the surveillance programs approved by past presidents pre-dated the warrant requirement. But, she said, no court has said the 1978 the law changes the president's inherent constitutional power to conduct surveillance for national security purposes. And she said a 2002 opinion by a secret federal court acknowledged that the president had sweeping surveillance powers. But Cole, the Georgetown professor, said the Bush administration is misstating the ruling in the 2002 case, including its requirement that the Justice Department seek warrants in national security cases. Cole said the case supported the notion that Congress could regulate the president's use of his surveillance powers. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...02/02/specialists_doubt_legality_of_wiretaps/
Bush claims that he kept relevant persons in Congress informed. Yet some of the members that he kept informed had specific questions and refused to give their approval. Despite this the President continued the program. Now we have Feingold challenging Gonzales who has apparently been caught in a lie. I enjoyed discussing the issue with Roxran earlier. If he is still reading this I wonder if his opinion has changed with this new information that has been presented. I wonder if any of the defenders of the President's actiosn would care to comment on the information that has now come to light.
Going back to the original topic of this thread - I've heard nothing, zero, nada - about the New York Times being put in the dock by the DOJ lately. In fact, even the whistleblower in this case and the TImes source, Russ Tice (against whom a criminal investigation, if any, would logically be directed, rather than against the messenger) has willingly come forward and stated his willingness to testify in Congress about the situation. I guess a random wishful speculation from Pajamasmedia.net about this sort of thing is not as valuable as I had originally thought. Of course - maybe the DOJ doesn't have time to run a proper investigation, since they have been too busy being professional yes-men and acting as the White House's personal counsel over this affair by churning out asinine memo after memo and giveing self-serving, ipse dixit speech after speech toe excuse the admin's actions instead of doing their job.
Not only that but remember the 12 hour gap, when Gonzales, the then AG was told to secure the White House, but he waited until the next day to do so?
What's the Whitehouse hiding? I mean, afterall, if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to be afraid of... right?
Nice little breakdown of the Domestic Spying "Talking Points" http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060220/cole NSA Spying Myths by DAVID COLE [from the February 20, 2006 issue] "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." So Richard Nixon infamously defended his approval of a plan to engage in warrantless wiretapping of Americans involved in the antiwar movement in the 1970s. For thirty years Nixon's defense has stood as the apogee of presidential arrogance. But of course Nixon was proved wrong. The wiretapping plan was shelved when J. Edgar Hoover, of all people, objected to it. Nixon's approval of it was listed in the articles of impeachment. Nixon learned the hard way that Presidents are not above the law. George W. Bush appears not to have learned the lesson. His defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of Americans resurrects the Nixon doctrine, with one modification. For Bush, "when the Commander in Chief does it, it is not illegal." In a memo to Congress, the Administration argued that the Commander in Chief may not be restricted in the "means and methods of engaging the enemy," and that Bush is thus free to wiretap Americans without court approval in the "war on terror" even if Congress has made it a crime. This assertion of uncheckable executive power is just one of five myths the Administration has propagated in a PR blitz designed to convince the public of a transparently unconvincing argument. As Congress readies for hearings on the subject, here's a primer on the spying debate. Myth 1: Following existing law would require the NSA to turn off a wiretap of an Al Qaeda member calling in to the United States. Variations on this theme appear every time the Administration defends the NSA spying program. The suggestion is that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would interfere with the President's ability to monitor Al Qaeda members' calls when it's most important to do so. There's only one problem: FISA would not require the tap to be turned off. First, FISA does not apply at all to wiretaps targeted at foreign nationals abroad. Its restrictions are triggered only when the surveillance is targeted at a citizen or permanent resident of the United States, or when the surveillance is obtained from a wiretap physically located within the United States. If the NSA is listening in on an Al Qaeda member's phone in Pakistan, nothing in FISA requires it to stop listening if that person calls someone in the United States. Second, even when FISA is triggered, it does not require the wiretap to be turned off but merely to be approved by a judge, based on a showing of probable cause that the target is a member of a terrorist organization. Such judicial approval may be obtained after the wiretap is put in place, so long as it is approved within seventy-two hours. Myth 2: Congress approved the NSA spying program when it authorized military force against Al Qaeda. This argument cannot be squared with existing law, which provides that even when Congress declares war--a much more formal and grave step than an authorization to use force--the President has only fifteen days to conduct warrantless surveillance. The Al Qaeda authorization says not one word about wiretapping Americans. In addition, when asked why the Administration did not seek to amend FISA to permit this program, the Attorney General explained that he consulted with several members of Congress but that they told him it would be "difficult, if not impossible," to obtain permission. You can't argue that you didn't ask because Congress would have said no, but that without asking, and without Congress saying so, it actually said yes. Myth 3: Bush informed Congress of the NSA program. "If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" Bush asked in a speech on the spying issue. His Administration claims that it informed isolated members of Congress twelve times, but there is no evidence that it told those members either that it believed its actions were authorized by the use-of-force resolution or that it was asserting executive power to violate criminal law. In addition, the briefings were classified, and members were prohibited from repeating to other members anything that was said there. So the answer to Bush's question is that he may have "informed Congress" precisely to provide cover in case his secret lawbreaking ever became public, but he did so in a manner that insured Congress could not take action against him. Myth 4: The courts have upheld inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes. Bush's defenders claim that every court to address the subject has said the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping for foreign intelligence-gathering purposes. What they do not say is that those courts were addressing presidential authority before Congress regulated such activity by enacting FISA in 1978. The fact that Presidents may have "inherent" authority to take action in the absence of contrary Congressional intent does not mean they have uncheckable authority to do so once Congress has prohibited the conduct. That argument would mean FISA is unconstitutional, and no court has so ruled. Myth 5: The President as Commander in Chief cannot be regulated by Congress. The Administration's ultimate defense is that even if Bush broke the law, his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief permits him to do so at his discretion. According to the Justice Department, Congress cannot limit his choice of how to "engage the enemy." This rationale is not limited to wiretapping. On the same theory, Justice argued in 2002 that he could order torture despite a criminal statute to the contrary. It is that theory that Bush was presumably invoking when, in signing the amendment barring "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of terrorism suspects, he said he would interpret it "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief." Bush tried this theory out on the Supreme Court in the Guantanamo cases, when he argued that it would be an unconstitutional intrusion on his Commander in Chief powers to extend habeas corpus review to Guantanamo detainees. Not a single Justice on the Court accepted that radical proposition. But that hasn't stopped Bush from asserting it again. After all, when you get to say what the law is, what's a contrary Supreme Court precedent or two?
its not even about that. that dude's just a wimp to be putting people on the ignore list and THEN TRYING TO RANK ON THEM.. he just scared to see the rebutal, but I accept there are cowards here.
