I have been working a lot today with various people to try to induce certain journalists to cover the issues I posted about yesterday regarding the Administration's inexplicable and highly revealing opposition to the proposed 2002 DeWine amendments to FISA. For that reason, I have not been able to blog yet today. I hope to have a few posts relating to this matter and a few others up later today.
In the meantime, I can't help but note that, with rare exception, the usually vocal and responsive pro-Bush contingent in the blogosphere has been deathly quiet regarding this issue. There have been several screeching responses consisting exclusively of foul, childish name-calling, but very, very few substantive responses.
One of the few is this post from the always civil and thoughtful Mark Coffey at Decision '08. Although I intend to post a reply to all of the pro-Bush responses collectively, I posted an initial response in Mark's Comments section. Additionally, the generally pro-Bush blogger Marc Schulman of American Future has, to his credit, acknowledged that, at least preliminarily, there seem to be serious questions raised by the Administration's reaction to the proposed DeWine legislation.
I think that engaging pro-Bush advocates on the NSA scandal is important and constructive (and thus encourage anyone so inclined to engage Mark in his Comments section, as well as any other pro-Bush blogger who may awaken from their slumber and address the issue), both because that sort of interaction fleshes out the real issues more effectively than having two parallel, unconnected monologues, and because debates of that type bring greater attention to the NSA law-breaking issue, which I believe is a desirable goal.
I look very forward to seeing further responses to the DeWine issue, particularly from those pro-Bush bloggers who are typically eager to the point of hyperactivity to defend the Administration's every utterance on the NSA scandal.
I think we should e-mail and leave comments at the blogs of the loudmouth blowhard Bush bloggers who refuse to address it. I'm going to start with Ace and Jeff Goldstein and others should do the same! They love to talk tough but won't address the real issues.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteHave you read Mr. Coffey's response?
It appears to me that Hayden is saying, in that relatively small group of communications where the president’s authorization and FISA both apply, he sees the authorization is being both operationally preferable and (oh, boy, I’m chanelling Al Gore) ‘the controlling legal authority’. If a wiretap satisfied FISA, it would by definition satisfy the presidential authorization, but for the small group that only satisfied the authorization, the authorization was enough.
This seems to me to be an exercise in tortuous, verbal contortions in an effort to say, "The president, or his proxy, gets to determine when a warrant is necessary."
Why can't the administration's supporters simply say they believe the president can wiretap anyone he chooses at any time he chooses and be done with it?
Keep up the good work.
Why can't the administration's supporters simply say they believe the president can wiretap anyone he chooses at any time he chooses and be done with it?
ReplyDeleteObviously, you haven't caught many of the comments from the fly or "the dog." They do openly claim for the President "inherent" powers as Commander-in-Chief (over all of us, apparently) that cannot be gainsaid by legislative or judicial action. Clearly, the system the Founders intended was of an executive with unchecked powers during an emergency, which emergency can be declared "generational" by the selfsame executive. They were trying to make a contrast with a monarchial system, you see.
--mds
Clearly, the system the Founders intended was of an executive with unchecked powers during an emergency, which emergency can be declared "generational" by the selfsame executive.
ReplyDeleteThis is the crux of the matter, as this blog as much as any other has really brought to light. The Administration is now openly saying that they violated the law because they could.
But the problem with this scandal is that there is a huge, sickly segment of the population which really does see George Bush in a religious or cultist light, and they really do trust him to exercise the power of a King, and they want him to do so. They trust Him to do Good, and see him as better than his opponents. So the more power he has, the better, even if it goes against everything which has made our history.
The more we argue that this is what the scandal is about, the more they will support him. But there is another segment of the population which generally supports Bush but which does NOT do so with blind loyalty. I believe what Glenn is saying is that those are the people we need to reach, and we really are reaching them, and I agree with him.
One other *polite* discussion issue I am finding problematic with strings of anonymous comments - is it's hard to follow who is speaking and if we've changed from anonymous commentator #1 to #15 and back to #3.
ReplyDeleteI WISH there were a way for them to atleast provide something identifying as to what number they are when they are #1,2, 3 or the 10th anonymous commentator and they make consecutive comments - one can then follow the jist of their previous points and respond accordingly.
I usually avoid long comment strings for this reason - BUT Glenn this is too important and vital and I really appreciate all the work and contributions you have done on this!!!
Thanks.
:-D
It appears that Volokh has responded to your post. I have not carefully reviewed it. Orin Kerr's post at http://www.volokh.com/
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks Glenn.
ReplyDelete---------------
Hayden, Address to the National Press Club, 1/23/06:
In early October 2001, I gathered key members of the NSA workforce in our conference room and I introduced our new operational authority to them. With the historic culture of NSA being what it was and is, I had to do this personally. I told them what we were going to do and why. I also told them that we were going to carry out this program and not go one step further. NSA's legal and operational leadership then went into the details of this new task.
------------------------
Hayden, from Statement to Joint Inquiry of the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence and The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence (pdf), 10/17/02 (shortly after DeWine, and presumably, long after the spying began)
38. When I spoke with our workforce shortly after the September 11th attacks, I told them that free people always had to decide where to draw the line between their liberty and their security, and I noted that the attacks would almost certainly push us as a nation more toward security. I then gave the NSA workforce a challenge: We were going to keep America free by making Americans feel safe again.
39. Let me close by telling you what I hope to get out of the national dialogue that these committees are fostering. I am not really helped by being reminded that I need more Arabic linguists or by someone second-guessing an obscure intercept sitting in our files that may make more sense today than it did two years ago. What I really need you to do is to talk to your constituents and find out where the American people want that line between security and liberty to be.
40. In the context of NSA's mission, where do we draw the line between the government's need for CT information about people in the United States and the privacy interests of people located in the United States? Practically speaking, this line-drawing affects the focus of NSA's activities (foreign versus domestic), the standard under which surveillances are conducted (probable cause versus reasonable suspicion, for example), the type of data NSA is permitted to collect and how, and the rules under which NSA retains and disseminates information about U.S. persons.
41. These are serious issues that the country addressed, and resolved to its satisfaction, once before in the mid-1970's. In light of the events of September 11th, it is appropriate that we, as a country, readdress them. We need to get it right. We have to find the right balance between protecting our security and protecting our liberty. If we fail in this effort by drawing the line in the wrong place, that is, overly favoring liberty or security, then the terrorists win and liberty loses in either case.
----------------
This is so depressing.
Glenn you are doing a great service to your country and its citzens. I encourage your readers email the bloggers/news sites/Air America Radio Hosts listed at the emails below and request they post this story immediately.
ReplyDeleteI know a few who have including mediamatters.org and truthout.org (article here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012506B.shtml) whose directors I emailed last night:
eschatonmail@comcast.net, crooksandliars@gmail.com, thinkprogress@americanprogressaction.org,
admin@boomantribune.com, mrdionysus@hotmail.com, TheBradBlog@cville.com, rrhodes@airamericaradio.com, ecotalk@airamericaradio.com, afranken@airamericaradio.com, website@SpringerOnTheRadio.com, scheduling@springerontheradio.com, backtalk@motherjones.com, vern@edschultzshow.com, ed@edschultzshow.com, james@edschultzshow.com, wendy@edschultzshow.com, david@davidswanson.org, steve@steveclemons.com
editor@rawstory.com,
avery@rawstory.com,
rawstory@gmail.com
scoop@huffintonpost.com
Congratulations on the Knight-Ridder story.
ReplyDeleteYou da man! Knight-Ridder got it!!
ReplyDeleteYES! The Washington Post not only covers it, but gives Glenn the credit!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502270.html?nav=rss_politics
I'm not so depressed anymore. Thank you, Glenn!
ReplyDeleteIf the president has indeed been granted an open-ended scope of power to "defend citizens" and defeat the enemy in this "war against terrorism", we may find ourselves in a never ending "war" that guarantees we have no recourse against the methods that may be used by any president at any time. We may even find that the president may find it a matter of national defense to maintain his position until someone of equal stature, abilities, and with his relationship with his saviour, Jesus Christ, is recognized and allowed to succeed him.
ReplyDeleteWaPo just picked up the Dewine story with you mentioned, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteBut Justice Department officials disagreed, saying the standard the department opposed in 2002 is legally different from the one used by the NSA.
"The FISA 'probable cause' standard is essentially the same as the 'reasonable basis' standard used in the terrorist surveillance program," said spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos, using the term for the NSA program the White House has adopted. "The 'reasonable suspicion' standard, which is lower than both of these, is not used in either program."
Justice officials also said that even under a different standard, the process of obtaining a surveillance warrant would take longer than is necessary for the NSA to efficiently track suspected terrorists.
The DeWine amendment -- first highlighted this week by Internet blogger Glenn Greenwald and widely publicized yesterday by the Project on Government Secrecy, an arm of the Federation of American Scientists -- is the latest point of contention in a fierce political and legal battle over the NSA monitoring program.
Other Notes:
Look for endless repetition of terrorist surveillance program until election day.
Note the merge of 'probable cause' and 'reasonable basis.'
Glenn, in your post from yesterday you pointed out that Put another way, the DoJ was concerned that it might be unconstitutional to eavesdrop with a lower standard than probable cause even as the Administration was doing exactly that.
ReplyDeleteBut wasn't it even worse than that? Baker professed concern in his 2002 testimony that the lower standard *in support of a FISA warrant* might ultimately be held unconstitutional, thereby derailing ongoing investigations and prosecutions. But Bush wasn't doing just that. He purposely kept the FISA court in the dark altogether, which should be prima facie unconstitutional, no matter the standard unilaterally "applied" by the Executive.
Thank you for your activism.
ReplyDeleteMost bloggers just want to get something off their chests. But you're doing the groundwork with the media. Hat's off, and thank you.
Here's a 2004 quote from G. Bush that he made concerning "spying." It is from an article in the Colorado Daily ---
ReplyDeleteQuote from Bush in 2004 -- "A wiretap requires a court order," President Bush declared in a statement in 2004. He added, "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order when we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand [that] constitutional guarantees are in place... because we value the Constitution."
I look very forward to seeing further responses to the DeWine issue, particularly from those pro-Bush bloggers who are typically eager to the point of hyperactivity to defend the Administration's every utterance on the NSA scandal.
ReplyDeleteBy odd symmetry, I am always keen to see the effort of those who are eager to the point of hyperactivity to dispute every utterance of the Bush Administration.
Points to ponder:
(1) The Admin response in 2002 also fretted that the new standard would be unconstitutional and taint all cases brought with FISA evidence.
(2) The DeWine amendment only lowered the bar for non-US persons, which may not have solved the Admin's problem.
Should they have supported an amendment that would not help them but might ruin FISA cases?
(3) We are reasoning by analogy here - presumaby the Hamdi and Padilla decisions did *not* mean that habeas corpus was suspended for all Americans for the duration.
On the other hand, they seem to mean that the President does have some powers that go beyond the normal statutory structure.
So - why can't we imagine that some forms of warrantless eavesdropping woild be legal (under a Hamdi type rationale), even if not all forms would be?
Tom MaAguire
Glenn, your story in the WAPO was just linked tonight as a top story headline on www.rawstory.com
ReplyDeleteCongrats.
And now on thinkprogress.org
ReplyDeletehttp://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/25/victory-2/
Scha-weeeeeet!
Kos posted the goodies tonight too.
ReplyDeleteHAT TRICK!!! THE TRIFECTA!!!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/25/231547/873
The FISA law didn't need to be changed because the Bush administration already knew that it was going around it to do, essentially, whatever it damn well pleased.
ReplyDeleteThis is, I believe, an extremely important discrepancy that must be examined. On the surface, the administration and the DoJ indicated that FISA was working properly. In addition, it clearly indicates that Congress didn't see a need to change FISA. Bush claims that Congress was briefed on the secret spying. Clearly, they were not, or they would have pushed forward with changes to FISA.
We'll see what excuses come forth from the White House on this, but this has the potential to blow the entire "discussion" wide open. In my mind, it shows that the White House wantonly violated the law.
Is that the "I" word I'm hearing?
Get down Glenn! Major paper exposure. Thank you thank you thank you for getting this out there, you've struck a real blow for truth.
ReplyDeleteNot bad for a rookie.
- Mercury
With a single post, The Psychotic Patriot thinks you've blazed a torrid trail into the heart of the dim, dark, media cave-people who until now could either ignore us or, if caught, spin us. Little by little, Left Blogistan rises to counter the echo chamber. Bravo, standing O from this Raven's corner.
ReplyDeleteIf we had a Democratic president illegal wiretapping would be illegal. IOKIYAR.
ReplyDelete"But Justice Department officials disagreed, saying the standard the department
ReplyDeleteopposed in 2002 is legally different from the one used by the NSA.
'The FISA "probable cause" standard is essentially the same as the "reasonable
basis" standard used in the terrorist surveillance program,' said spokeswoman
Tasia Scolinos, using the term for the NSA program the White House has adopted.
'The "reasonable suspicion" standard, which is lower than both of these, is not
used in either program.'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502270_pf.html
"QUESTION: Hope we see more of you here.
Just to clarify sort of what's been said, from what I've heard you say today and
an earlier press conference, the change from going around the FISA law was to --
one of them was to lower the standard from what they call for, which is
basically probable cause to a reasonable basis; and then to take it away from a
federal court judge, the FISA court judge, and hand it over to a shift
supervisor at NSA. Is that what we're talking about here -- just for
clarification?
GEN. HAYDEN: You got most of it right. The people who make the judgment, and the
one you just referred to, there are only a handful of people at NSA who can make
that decision. They're all senior executives, they are all counterterrorism and
al Qaeda experts. So I -- even though I -- you're actually quoting me back,
Jim, saying, "shift supervisor." To be more precise in what you just described,
the person who makes that decision, a very small handful, senior executive. So
in military terms, a senior colonel or general officer equivalent; and in
professional terms, the people who know more about this than anyone else.
QUESTION: Well, no, that wasn't the real question. The question I was asking,
though, was since you lowered the standard, doesn't that decrease the
protections of the U.S. citizens? And number two, if you could give us some
idea of the genesis of this. Did you come up with the idea? Did somebody in the
White House come up with the idea? Where did the idea originate from?
Thank you.
GEN. HAYDEN: Let me just take the first one, Jim. And I'm not going to talk
about the process by which the president arrived at his decision.
I think you've accurately described the criteria under which this operates, and
I think I at least tried to accurately describe a changed circumstance, threat
to the nation, and why this approach -- limited, focused -- has been effective.
MR. HILL: Final question.
QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same
issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your
wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of
the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a
search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and
seizures. Do you use --
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us
against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the --
GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable --
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --
[The 4th amendment: "The right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized."]
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --
GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just
a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding
is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably
believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to
the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause." And so what many people
believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually
done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of
"reasonably believe" in place in probable cause because the FISA court will not
give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause.
Could you respond to that, please?
GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful
order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the
order.
Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the
Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with,
it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment.
And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to
become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth
Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is
"reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what
it is we're doing is reasonable."
http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_012306.html
Glenn
ReplyDeleteCongrats on your big scoop in the WaPo and Knight-Ridder! Thanks for your hard work.
The LA Times version of this story gives credit to the lame excuse that the administration lied about not wanting the FISA standards changed because they didn't want a public debate to reveal the program, which harks back to the terrorists didn't know we'd listen in nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the good work. We needed that.
ReplyDelete"Just trust us" is the essence of the political defense in this scandal. "We're operating with no oversight but our own, but we won't use this power maliciously or to go after political enemies n stuff. Honest. We'd never do anything like that."
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they have a long sordid history of using any weapon near to hand against their political enemies is part of the reason a growing number of us don't trust them. "Those who are eager to the point of hyperactivity to dispute every utterance of the Bush Administration" as Anonymous posts above.
But here's the thing about this current revelation: It demonstrates vividly that they are NOT trustworthy. This was an exceedingly duplicitous and cynical act. It demonstrates that they knew what they were doing would not pass constitutional muster--they made the argument themselves--even as they sought to prevent an airing of these issues that might have exposed the fact that they were already doing it.
I don't see how "just trust us" can survive this revelation. But then I haven't been keeping up on my kool aid drinking. I'm sure Tweety will think of something. Bush IS so manly after all.
I can't coax Typepad to let me post anymore, but these two articles from 2002 were on topic:
ReplyDeleteHere is AP coverage from 2002 of the DeWine proposal:
Senators propose easing standards for surveillance of foreigners
WASHINGTON – The FBI could face fewer legal obstacles to spying on foreign terrorist suspects in the United States under two Senate proposals.
Lawmakers say they are trying to eliminate barriers that may have prevented the FBI from aggressively investigating Zacarias Moussaoui after he was arrested a month before the Sept. 11 hijackings. Moussaoui has since been charged with conspiring in the attacks.
Civil libertarians and legal analysts question whether the proposals are constitutional.
Under a bill submitted last week by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, authorities wouldn't have to offer as much proof that a foreigner was linked to terrorism in order to place wiretaps and conduct secret searches.
"It would be a major change," said Gregory Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national office in Washington.
...
FISA has received more attention in recent weeks because of revelations that FBI agents in Minnesota had been denied permission from headquarters to search Moussaoui's laptop computer after he was arrested on an immigration charge. Headquarters had determined there was insufficient evidence to show that Moussaoui was an agent of a foreign government or organization.
FBI Director Robert Mueller told lawmakers this month that the bureau is "looking at ways to tweak" FISA to address the problems in the Moussaoui case.
Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., have proposed eliminating the requirement that a foreign terrorism suspect be linked to a foreign power. The standard would remain place for U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
That change could be challenged in courts, said Stewart Baker, who was general counsel for the National Security Agency in the early 1990s. He said FISA was conceived after a Supreme Court ruling that suggested intelligence gathering aimed at foreign powers or organizations shouldn't be subjected to the same kind of constraints placed on regular domestic surveillance.
"There is a risk if you take group membership out of it, that it's a bridge too far for the courts."
Both bills have been referred to the Senate Intelligence Committee...
END EXCERPT
And here is a 2002 Weekly Standard article that does not appear to have stood up well. The author makes the useful point that FISA relates to courts and evidence-gathering, not war-fighting. But here is the excruciating bit:
In other words: The FBI might quite reasonably have pursued Zacarias Moussaoui last August, FISA notwithstanding, but did not. One year later, a mainstream, hardly crazy, civil-liberties-respecting Bush administration might at very least be asking Congress, also quite reasonably, to relax FISA's "probable cause" strictures--so that future Coleen Rowleys can snoop on future Zacarias Moussaouis without "violating" a law that likely isn't constitutional anyhow. But the Bush administration isn't doing that either. Republican senator Mike DeWine has proposed such an amendment to FISA, and even Democrats like Pat Leahy say they're open to the idea. Leahy's is too rough a constitutional sensibility for George W. Bush and John Ashcroft, though. At a hearing last Wednesday, CIA and Justice Department representatives told the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that DeWine's idea was inconsistent with the administration's vision of the Fourth Amendment.
News flash: Our president and his attorney general are, if anything, oversolicitous of the (imaginary) civil liberties of their war-on-terrorism POWS. But don't hold your breath waiting for the newspapers to notice.
Oh, well - I'm sure there is stuff in my archives that I would rather leave there.
Tom Maguire
http://www.slate.com/id/2134845/nav/
ReplyDeletetap1/
"The first time you read the 'White Paper,' you feel like it is describing a foreign country guided by an unfamiliar constitution."
Weisberg isn't too keen on it, either.
"To develop this observation a bit further, the nation implied by the document would be an elective dictatorship, governed not by three counterpoised branches of government but by a secretive, possibly benign, awesomely powerful king."
From the Gonzales speech at Georgetown earlier this week:
ReplyDelete"Nor does it matter that individual Members of Congress may not have specifically intended to authorize such (detention)."
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/
Gonzales is arguing that it doesn't matter what individual congressmen intended, or by his reasoning then, it wouldn't even matter what all congressmen individually intended. His fact of the matter is that Congress, 'as a body' implied that it was ok for the president to disregard the FISA law, even if all the individual congressmen dont think that's what they implied.
By that reasoning, what else is implied in the AUMF that we, and Congress, are not aware of yet?
Some of you misunderstand the issue involved. Bush is right and everyone who disagress is an unpatriotic treason loving SOB. No contrary facts may be permitted to confuse the issue. Bush talks at God, God talks to Cheney and Cheney gives Rove Bush's marching orders. Thus we have our current situation well in hand till the Democrats take over when all hell will break loose. (In March of 1993 I was told by a Federal employee that everything wrong with the country was Bill Clinton's fault. Clinton had been in office less than 60 days and he had already had such a terrific impact. This will happen again by March 2009 to whichever Democrat is in office.)
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
ReplyDeleteJustice Department spokesperson Tasia Scolinos responds to your "find" -- now in the MSM --with this:
The FISA “probable cause” standard is essentially the same as the “reasonable basis” standard used in the terrorist surveillance program. The “reasonable suspicion” standard, which is lower than both of these, is not used in either program.
Honest to God, I can't wrap my head around this. In a mere two sentences, the Bush Administration has:
(1) created a heretofore unknown legal standard called "reasonable belief", which is synonymous with the "probable cause" standard and NOT (as one would think) the "reasonable suspicion" standard
and
(2) contradicted General Heyden, who made it abundently clear merely three days ago, that the NSA was, of necessity, acting under a lower legal standard than probable cause.
My Westlaw and Lexis use is curtailed (you know how that goes), but using Findlaw, I have yet to find a case in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence which supports what Ms. Scolinos says. In fact, the cases I see use "reasonable basis" interchangeably with "reasonable suspicion". The phrase "reasonable basis" is followed by the words "for suspecting...". One does not need a law degree to recognize that the words "reasonable basis for suspecting" = "reasonable suspicion".
Black's Law Dictionary (not my favorite primary source, but useful in a pinch) confirms this as well.
You're doing incredible work here. I can't wait for your response to the Bush Administration.
I am trying to udnerstand why of the Bush administration believed they could engage in warrantless wiretapping they continued to make application to FISA for some wiretaps. That seems the biggest contradiction to me. If Bush honestly believes he does need to get FISA authority to place wiretaps, why were any applications to FISA made at all?
ReplyDeleteHUME'S GHOST writes:
ReplyDeleteThe LA Times version of this story gives credit to the lame excuse that the administration lied about not wanting the FISA standards changed because they didn't want a public debate to reveal the program...
Well, that's pretty dumb. Since the FISA statute itself is not a secret (and has never been a secret) -- and its text has always been available on publically-available sources like, oh, the Internet -- it's pretty safe to assume that terrorists were aware that they might be wiretapped.
And the fact that they have ALWAYS talked in codewords merely proves it.
I swear, the Bush Administration justifications these don't even have a consistent internal logic.
ANN asks:
ReplyDeleteI am trying to udnerstand why of the Bush administration believed they could engage in warrantless wiretapping they continued to make application to FISA for some wiretaps. That seems the biggest contradiction to me. If Bush honestly believes he [doesn't] need to get FISA authority to place wiretaps, why were any applications to FISA made at all?
Since its inception, every President has availed himself of the FISA Court hundreds of times.
If Bush didn't do it at all (especially after 9/11), it would look rather odd.
In other words, if he didn't make SOME applications to FISA, it was raise a red flag that Bush was either (a) not doing anything on the war on terror and/or (b) circumventing the law.
Gotta keep up appearances, Ann.
Gotta keep up appearances, Ann.
ReplyDeleteBut that still doesn't make sense. He said again today that he is absolutely certain that he had the authority to wiretap without FISA approval. He's CERTAIN. He doesn't care about appearances or polls. It's another of the several inconsistencies in this entire matter that tells me he knows he was breaking the law.
But that still doesn't make sense. He said again today that he is absolutely certain that he had the authority to wiretap without FISA approval. He's CERTAIN.
ReplyDeleteLOL. Yeah, what ELSE is he going to say?
He's not going to provide any basis for his "certainty", because he has none!
I mean, I think you and I are on the same page. You're absolutely right to ask. I didn't pick up on the fact that your question was rhetorical.
A similar rhetorical question might be: "If Bush believes he has the constitutional authority to wiretap at will, why would he campaign for an extension to the Patriot Act since (in his mind) he doesn't need it in the first place?"
These and other questions have been floating for several weeks now, and I have yet to hear an on-point response from the Bush White House or Bush supporters. Hayden's press conference the other day was the one of the few actual attempts to address the legal issues in a non-conclusory way, and it was (for them) a disaster.
Glenn's observation is right. The rightwing blogosphere is remarkably silent. It's still silent, almost 24 hours after first Glenn noted it (and 24 hours is an eternity in blogosphere time).
That's because they have no talking points (for once), and the few talking points they had were effectively squashed (by Glenn).