A few miscellaneous matters:
(1) Marty Lederman, a former Justice Department official and current Georgetown Law Professor (and current blogger), is an insightful and knowledgeable source for the NSA scandal. He left a Comment to an earlier post here which contains some highly informed speculation as to what this eavesdropping program likely was about and why it was implemented.
(2) A copy of the letter sent yesterday by Sen. Arlen Specter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez can be read here. Specter, whose Judiciary Committee has scheduled hearings on the NSA scandal to begin in early February (with Gonzalez to testify on February 6), sent a list of 15 questions he wants Gonzalez to be prepared to answer.
The questions are fine as far as they go, but I have very little faith either in Specter's willingness to pose genuine challenges to the Administration's law-breaking, and even less faith in the ability of the well-intentioned but (mostly) frustratingly lame and broken-down Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to pursue and expose the true nature of the Administration's lawlessness here. That will likely have to be left to some combination of the media, the blogosphere and citizen pressure/anger. There are actually some Republicans on the Committee (Graham, Brownback, even Specter) who have expressed some serious objections to the Administration's law-breaking here but, under the Bush Administration, Republicans like that have always snapped back into line after squawking with little impotent noises of protest. There is little reason to hope for any different behavior here.
(3) I will be on Air America's Majority Report tonight at 8:05 p.m. EST to discuss the NSA scandal. You can find your local listings for Air America or listen to the live stream here.
(4) Crooks and Liars has two video clips which are highly relevant and worth watching - the first is from Richard Nixon, famously declaring that "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal. This really is the closest historic precedent to the activities of the current occupant of the White House.
The second clip is of Gen. Hayden who, after sternly lecturing the media that the NSA is run by experts who know more about privacy issues than any other Americans, proceeded to demonstrate that he has only the vaguest and most passing familiarity with this thing called the "Fourth Amendment."
I have no hope for the hearings. It will be a whitewash. Looking forward to hearing you on AA tonight.
ReplyDeleteGreat work on all of this - not just yesterday but for the past many weeks.
I just found your blog today. I'm very impressed. You have done some excellent work uncovering all of this. Thank you very much!
ReplyDeleteRanting and Venting
Hayden apparently knew that he had to have probable cause and a warrant to conduct FISA searches in 2000.
ReplyDeleteHere's what Hayden said then:
"Under FISA, NSA may only target communications of a U.S. person in the United States if a federal judge finds probable cause to believe that the U.S. person is an agent of a foreign power. Probable cause exists when facts and circumstances within the applicant's knowledge and of which he/she has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the proposed target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power. Under the statute, a judge may determine a U.S. person to be an agent of a foreign power only if there is information to support a finding that the individual is a spy, terrorist, saboteur, or someone who aids or abets them."
sorry, forgot the link to Hayden's comments:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hayden.html
Glenn, you are right about this hearings. I think it is very important to hold Alberto Gonzales and co feet to the fire.
ReplyDeleteWhy not post 20 or more tough questions that you would like to ask Gonzales? Or better still send them to the Democratic senators on the judicial committees.
Why not post 20 or more tough questions that you would like to ask Gonzales? Or better still send them to the Democratic senators on the judicial committees.
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent idea - it's probably a good project for the blogosphere collectively or for various people who have focused on this scandal to work jointly on.
Having said that, I think Specter's questions are decent enough. But Gonzalez is going to arrive prepared to give the first level or two of responses to those questions, and it's the ability and willingness of the Judiciary Committee members to then tenaciously cross-examine Gonzalez (and the other witnesses) and follow-up and expose the deficiencies in the responses which is of concern.
As the Alito hearings demonstrated, many of them are basically incapable of doing anything more than reading from the list of questions prepared by their staffs, and then looking ahead blankly when they hear an answer which is totally non-responsive and/or has huge gaping holes, after which they look down at their paper and read the next prepared question.
There are some good and aggressive members of the Committee who know how to examine witnesses, and unlike the Alito hearings, there will be some Republicans with some serious concerns, but one can't help but expect the same sad dynamic to play out -- Republicans snap into line with blind loyalty behind The Commander-in-Chief and Democrats talk a little tough and then cave in and do nothing meaningful at the end.
But we'll see - I think the media is starting to appreciate the true magnitude of this scandal and its potential to inflict real damage on the Administration (something which the Administration appreciated from the beginning), and polls are starting to reflect real concern as well, so I think there is still a lot of things that can happen with this scandal both at these hearings and beyond.
Yes, the ability to seriously cross-examine Gonzalez is whats important. Does Sen Kohl come to mind...he sure was reading his questions and then moving on rather quickly during the Alito hearings.
ReplyDeleteBut the idea of asking some solid questions I think is also great. That way, Gonzalez has to work extra hard to squirm his way through, and maybe the bolder and sharper senators like Feingold can work harder with the glaring holes that are sure to arise in Gonzalez's answers.
Could any of this internal spying have to do with the AIPAC scandal? Could the administration be concerned that revealing that they were spying on AIPAC/Franklin be damaging in some way?
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of Specter's letter was his questioning about why they didn't give FISA the benefit of the doubt with their decision to wiretap on insufficient evidence, as it regards to the FISA court's willingness to keep things confidential:
ReplyDelete"The FISA court is at least as reliable, if not more so, than the Executive Branch on avoiding disclosures or leaks"
I'm guessing Rove didn't approve of this letter.
-Robert
A little more planning and a little less posing than the Dems showed in the Alito fiasco would be a helpful start.
ReplyDeletePutting Biden on a timer would also move things along. T
The twenty questions idea is a great idea. Wouldn't it be something if questions here actually got answers?
I'm a Delawarean, that is, a Biden constituent. He took a beating in the local papers (as well as the national media) over his embarassing display during the Alito hearings.
ReplyDeleteI am encouraging every one I know that is a constituent to contact his office to: a) complain about his embarassing display; and, b) to ask Biden to redeem himself when these hearing are held.
We'll see how it goes.
From Thursday press conference - Bush: "And so he (Hayden) came forward with this program. It wasn't designed in the White House, it was designed where you expect it to be designed, in the N.S.A." From Hayden speech/q&a - ...give us some idea of the genesis of this...Hayden: "Sure. I didn't craft the authorization."
ReplyDeleteThis is my first read of your blog and I consider it one of the best examples of what a solid blog can be. Thanks, I'll be back.
ReplyDeleteMr. Greenwald,
ReplyDeletePrecisely how important do you believe it is to fix the Voting Machine Problem?
To me, it's the most important political reality facing democracy in America.
Is there any issue more urgent? I'd be delighted to know your view of this.
Best,
m.
at #4 you refer to the clip of Nixon on c/l. This is very poignant, since these people would have been able to put their agenda across a generation ago, had it not been for Mark Felt and the Washington Post and an American people not yet completely made brain-dead from TV and MSM.
ReplyDeleteThey have been set back a generation, yes, but they've had that time to mature their plan. And time to soften us up with 30 more years of TV and MSM.
Sometime ago c/l also posted a clip of composer Frank Zappa guesting on Crossfire in 1986 with Bob Novak and others. Mr. Zappa very clearly states his view that America was heading for a "fascist theocracy". Rather astute.
This is another reason, among many, that I believe the Electronic Voting System to be the gravest threat facing American democracy.
Alito and Roberts become much less a "threat" if there are appropriate checks and balances in the Executive and Congressional branches.
Thus, another reason why losing the right to vote through the implementation of the Help America Vote Act should be the most urgent issue among Democrats and others opposed to the "Unitary Executive".
Yet I see nothing, NOTHING, on the foremost lefty blogs about this issue.
And I wonder "why?"
I am glad you are doing this.
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt Mr. Lederman's expertise on such matters, but I don't think he's thinking like a Bushie.
ReplyDeleteThe text of 1802 says "may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that" ... among other things, that the person are not a "United States person."
When I think like a Bushie I think to myself "Well, if a US person is involved, then FISA is simply the inappropriate statue, and does not control here."
Then, as I did before, I go back to General Hayden's response to Jonathon Landay, and I see that they simply decided that nothing but the 4th amendment applied, and that they simply chose to define the search as "reasonable," and therefore not a violation thereof.
Sorry if I'm being braindead about something important here. I'm strictly an amateur at the law.
Re: 20 Questions.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, I think it would take an expert of some sort to wade through the questions. If we simply randomized it, with any right-winger who wants to being able to add questions and vote for them, what sort of process is it?
You've been nominated, eh?
Xxxoooxxx says: “Yet I see nothing, NOTHING, on the foremost lefty blogs about this issue.”
ReplyDeleteJosh Narins says: “Sorry if I'm being braindead about something important here.”
Mr. Narins has it right. If you want to see what the pros think of this “scandal” read the transcript of Pelosi and Durbin at the National Press Club meeting yesterday. Of course, with the level of awareness demonstrated by the commenter here so far, you all probably think that Pelosi, et al, are simply unaware of Mr. Greenwald’s commentary.
They know that this issue is a gun that can backfire on Democrats who do not save it to be fired at only the absolute best opportunity and probably never. Hint: “Democrats, furious at being charged with treason in the GWOT, today accused the Bush administration of ignoring legal technicalities in their all-out efforts to protect America.” Makes a very nice cherry on the traitor pie. Or, you tell me why Pelosi is not heading the charge on this issue? Maybe she learned something from her experience with being out front with “get out now”?
Thanks to your excellent substantive work on the NSA spying issue, your readership now includes journalists, pundits, and probably quite a few people new to reading blogs. That's why I'm overcoming a certain reluctance to post spelling-correction comments. That, and the expectation that the name in question might appear in many, many future posts:
ReplyDeleteAlberto Gonzales