Well, here we go again.
Forgive the ABC/AP headline (the “wiretapping” Gore is “assailing” is foreign intel gathering, and not, as The AP/ABC would have you believe, “domestic wiretapping”—except in the most incidental and /or theoretically non-specific sense of the description (and as legally prescribed under FISA’s electronic surveillance definition). And not only that, but it is foreign intel gathering performed under the Constitutional auspices of the NSA (as a military offshoot of the exectutive responsible for gathering signals intel in a times of war, with the authority to provide summaries of intercepts to federal law enforcement, even if the US person isn’t a foreign agent; of course, this question, too, may be largely moot, as the technology here seems to be far more automated and advanced, and perhaps keyed off of a database of flagged words and phrases). All of this comes at the authorization of the President, who, as CiC, has publically drawn on both his Article II and FISA authority (via the congressional AUMF override of FISA, which competing authority creates a series of specific statutory override exemptions to FISA “constraints” on the executive that no one has yet to show the goverment has violated); privately, however, the program remains secret enough that we cannot be sure exactly how the President, the DoJ, the DoD, and NSA will legally justify it—except to note that they have claimed repeatedly and without a hint of defensiveness that they have acted properly and within established legal and constitutional parameters (the wild, worst-case scenario hypothetical hysterics of anti-war opponents, partisan opportunists, a sensationalistic media, and civil libertarian absolutists notwithstanding).
Which brings us to today’s events, which civil libertarian absolutists and anti-war partisan opportunists alike will tout as a watershed moment in gauntlet dropping: the Al Gore / Bob Barr tag-team that accuses the President and his administration of lawbreaking and potentially impeachable offenses. From ABC/AP:
Former Vice President Al Gore called Monday for an independent investigation of President Bush’s domestic spying program, contending the president “repeatedly and persistently” broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval.
Speaking on Martin Luther King Jr.’s national holiday, the man who lost the 2000 presidential election to Bush was interrupted repeatedly by applause as he called the anti-terrorism program “a threat to the very structure of our government.”
Gore charged that the administration acted without congressional authority and made a “direct assault” on a special federal court that authorizes requests to eavesdrop on Americans. One judge on the court resigned last month, voicing concerns about the National Security Agency’s surveillance of e-mails and phone calls.
Gore, as is his wont, is forever weeks behind in his fiery, red-faced rhetoric—and today was no different (MF, Anonymous Liberal, Llama School, Glenn Greenwald, Jonathan Turley, et al, have been on this for ages), as he delivered a speech replete with the very question-begging charges that have become the staple of anti-Bush boilerplate on this particular non-story.
Quickly: Gore argues that a) “the president ‘repeatedly and persistently’ broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval”—which is nothing more than an assertion, and assertion meant solely to taint the public’s perception of the program. Where is the proof of this lawbreaking? The answer is, there is none—and in fact, the President and Gen Hayden (along with those familiar with the program interviewed by the NYT) have asserted repeatedly that in these kinds of situation (Gore and his ideological fellow travelers frame this as “eavesdropping on American citizens,” while Bush and the administration frame it as “listening in on phone calls eminating from known al Qaeda nodes”) FISA warrants were obtained, FISA statutes were deferred to, and fourth amendment and due process obligations met.
Most interestingly to me, however, is the way the Bushies continue to allow this story to play; the constitutionality of FISA under current conditions is, in my opinion (and following “inherent authority” and separation of powers precedence under war-time conditions [cf Youngstown])—dubious at best, and illegal at worst. In fact, FISA as it is now being deployed, is a prime example of a separation of powers battle between those who don’t truly believe in coequal branches of government, but would rather see—even in war time—the legislative branch able to control the tactical and strategic aspects of waging war; that is, they wish to have War Powers control over the President that exceeds budgetary and other powers granted them by the Constitution (unless, that is, say, Clinton/Gore happen to be in power; but again—incidental, I’m sure).
Forget for the moment that FISA was not, as I’ve pointed out by linking to its legislative history, or citing Carter’s own Griffin Bell on the subject, ever meant to constrain NSA foreign intel work, nor to constrain the President’s mandate to protect the country from an internal and potentially imminent threat. What is interesting is that they continue to allow opponents to pick the poison—constitutional authority / statutory authority—with which they intend to hang the President and, ultimately, perhaps even insititute articles of impeachment.
And the reason they are allowing this, I believe, is that they are certain of their legal standing—being in the position of knowing the scope, intricacies, and execution of the program, as well as having taken the program through layers upon layers of internal judicial review, FISA Court review, and Congressional select intelligence briefings. That is, they know that the sound and fury from the left, Gore, civil libertarian absolutists, and the press signifies nothing—other than a win for the Bushies, who will once again show themselves as serious and aggressive on protecting the nation, while their opponents show themselves to be speculative debaters who assume only bad faith and who wind up, in their zeal to win debating points, arguing—as did Tom Daschle, in one of the biggest political blunders I can remember—that the Congress never granted the President the military authority, under AUMF, to protect the homeland (say, New York City) after 911, so “concerned” were they that acquiring intercepts of al Qaeda connected calls into and out of the country could, under some very strained and dubious readings of domestic criminal law, be construed as potentially violating the fourth amendent rights of those connected in some way (even accidentally) to al Qaeda.
In short, Daschle reminded us that Congress gave the President the authority to launch hellfire missile from drones at Taliban safehouses, but that it did not give him the authority to listen in on coversations about who might be in those safehouses, should one end of those conversations cross into the US (or, even more ludicrously, cross through US switches).
This is the Democratic argument.
Gore further argued that, b) this anti-terrorism program of NSA foreign intel gathering—which has been a staple of US military intel work for decades—is “a threat to the very structure of our government”—a pronouncement that rivals Daschle’s for political tone deafness. The argument, for Gore, is this: foreign intel gathering that has to rely on picking up one end of the conversation in the US—that is, intel gathering that is forced to work under the situational dodges established by terrorists hoping to thwart our “domestic wiretapping laws”—is a threat to the very structure of our government because it refuses to grant the legislative branch, in its current, disingenuous incarnation, the ultimate authority to check the President’s war powers under AUMF. And that is what this is all about. In other words, if the legislative branch is not allowed to claim greater powers than the executive in the management of war—if they aren’t allowed to pump a few more pints of plasma into that “living Constitution” of theirs so that it expands its pulmonary cavity and turns the careful separation of powers into a more legislative-friendly parliamentary republic—well, then the terrorists will have won.
Gore goes on to contend that “the administration acted without congressional authority and made a ‘direct assault’ on a special federal court that authorizes requests to eavesdrop on Americans”—yet another bit of obfuscation and dishonest misdirection. The administration’s congressional authority comes from the AUMF, which passed congress; the “direct assault” he supposedly made on a special federal court has not been proven (and in fact has been denied by both the administration and Gen Hayden)—though the administration has certainly asserted its right to disregard the dictates of that special federal court should the court attempt to deny the Executive its wartime powers; but it has also noted that it complied with FISA by meeting the requirements of a statutory exemption. And it did so while keeping its cards close to the vest. All of which proves it reserves the right to defend itself on any number of constitutional and legal grounds, without giving away which, if any, it will appeal to, should such become necessary.
Gore then pulls the tired ploy of finding and citing the conscientious martyr, in this case, a judge on the FISA court who last month resigned, voicing concerns about the National Security Agency’s surveillance of e-mails and phone calls.
Fine. His prerogative. But the FISA Court of appeals held for the administration with regard to what is publically known of the program, and the other judges did not resign. Which, to believe Gore and the press, would seem to suggest that they are simply complicit in obvious lawbreaking and, like German soldiers after WWII, might be forced to fall back on the defense that they “were only following orders” when the forces of civil liberties righteousness are finally able to bring charges against these anti-American proto-fascist lackeys.
But that’s a question for the aftermath, when justice once again prevails. For now, here’s more about today’s Gore ‘08 trial balloon:
Gore’s speech was sponsored by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and The Liberty Coalition, two organizations that have expressed concern about the policy.
The former vice president said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should name a special counsel to investigate the program, citing the attorney general’s “obvious conflict of interest” as a member of the Bush Cabinet as well as the nation’s top law enforcement officer.
[Translation: it would be easier for the “special investigation” to impeach the program if they can convince one of those familiar with its deliberation and institution—and responsible for putting together its legal reasoning—to step aside. After all, knowing the arguments for why you are able to put together a specific legal case is a “conflict of interest,” if the conflict of interest, according to critics of the program, is defending the administration’s actions in the first place.
But I digress.
Gonzales has agreed to testify publicly at a Senate hearing on the program, and he told a news conference recently that the president acted “consistent with his legal authority” to protect Americans from a terrorist threat.
Gore, speaking at DAR Constitution Hall, said the concerns are especially important on the King holiday because the slain civil rights leader was among thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government.
… a typically tacky emotional appeal that combines the red herring, the non sequitur, and Nixonian-Hoover guilt by association into one big steaming bowl of willful and orchestrated irrelevance.
The piece continues:
Gore said there is still much to learn about the domestic surveillance program, but he already has drawn a conclusion about its legality.
“What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently,” the Democrat maintained.
Bush has pointed to a congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that authorized him to use force in the fight against terrorism as allowing him to order the program.
Gore had a different view, contending that Bush failed to convince Congress to support a domestic spying program, so he “secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother.”
[my emphases]
And there you have it: Bush broke the law because the AUMF was never intended to allow us to fight terrorists—who embed themselves in our cities and attempt to work within out laws to thward detection—here at home, even if the NSA procedures were followed, and even if the FISA warrants were obtained when necessary (which we are assured is the case). In short, Gore’s entire case is that Bush failed to convince Congress that what is not a “domestic spying program” is not a domestic spying program, so now certain members of Congress, the press, and civil liberties groups, are claiming Bush engaged in an illegal “domestic spying program” that they have no proof, other than their own distrust of the President and a host of careful constructed hypotheticals under which some law or other might have been violated, has ever taken place.
[Gore] said the spying program must be considered along with other administration actions as a constitutional power grab by the president. Gore cited imprisoning American citizens without charges in terrorism cases, mistreatment of prisoners including torture and seizure of individuals in foreign countries and delivering them to autocratic regimes “infamous for the cruelty of their techniques.”
—ironic, given Gore’s one-time quip on rendition, but let’s not quibble. The rest of that statement is rhetorical sleight of hand: a) there is no reason why the “spying program” must be considered along with anything else the Bushies might have done or argued, unless it is your contention that the conspiracy underlying this imperial presidency is so wide-ranging and singularly-centered that, well, your understanding of how government works would get your script laughed out of even Chris Carter’s office; b) imprisoning citizens without charges was the subject of a legal battle, and so was not de facto against the law; instead, it was asserted as a wartime tool (and upheld, provisionally); c) the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib led to convictions, and was brought to light by an internal investigation; and d) the “torture” charge is patently false as a systemic problem or executive / DoD initiative, and in fact the question of what constitutes torture led to a useful discussion of the types of interrogation techniques the US was willing (and legallly permitted) to engage in—all of which conspires to make Gore’s suggestion nothing but red meat boilerplate for those more interested in wearing their outrage like a badge of civilized honor than they are in engaging in the tough questions demanded by the particularities of our current enemy, its tactics, and our response, as a nation of laws, to the necessity of truly considering the nexus of self-defense and preservation for maintaining our way of life (which is what we are fighting for).
In short, Gore and his ilk have decided on easy and superficially showy “idealism,” and have eschewed the areas where workable idealism can be truthfully and seriously hashed out.
More:
Gore didn’t only criticize government officials. Referring to news reports that private telecommunications companies have provided the Bush administration with access to private information on Americans, Gore said any company that did so should immediately end its complicity in the program.
This being the final bit of irony coming from the progressive Democrats, whose shrieks of having their patriotism questioned have become laughably cliche—even as they turn around and immediately try to suggest that those who have provided their President in the time of war to access to switches and pen registries (some of which is used in billing and law enforcement) are themselves complicit in a form of anti-patriotic collusion with a rogue illegal regime.
Up is down, black is white, Eli is Peyton…
So in short—and to borrow a phrase doubtless familiar to Mr Gore—there’s no there there, just more question begging, assertion, and emotional attempts to turn the mere constructed appearance of law breaking into actual lawbreaking.
In once sense, Gore and his Dem friends have succeeded. They’ll get their investigation (I eagerly await the follow-on public Sandy Berger investigation, as well as the leak investigation that undergirds this story), as well as the media cover necessary to keep floating “impeachment” in the information stream like some Harry Reid bean burrito fart. But ultimately—as I’ve argued all along—this is a hand the Dem leadership and the media are overplaying to a dangerous extreme, and I expect the repurcussions, should the administration and GOP strategists play their cards right, will be severe for the liberal Dems, civil libertarian absolutists, and the press.
We should not forget, either, that allowing Al Gore to act as the new face of this movement is another political blunder. Some left-liberals may still like the Tonguemeister (a progressive firebrand capable of infinite reinventions, not to mention an environmental stalwart with a connection to Bill Clinton, whose crossover popularity is undisputed)—but most Americans don’t like the guy, and his defeat as President in 2000 remains, to my way of thinking, not only proof of one of the most poorly-run campaigns of all time, but a testament to public distrust and distaste with the wooden opporunist.
At any rate, political considerations aside, here’s the “RNC Response to Today’s Speech by Al Gore; Gore Takes Aim at Bush Administration’s Efforts to Fight the War On Terror”, released by the GOP as a series of talking points which I’ll leave you to parse on your own:
Once Upon A Time, Gore Talked Tough About Cracking Down On Terrorists:
In 1999, Vice President Gore Declared: “Hear Me Well – We Will Fight The Reckless Violence Of Terrorism And We Will Never Yield To Terrorism, Ever.” (Joe Carroll, “Clinton Exhorts Parties to Surmount Last Hurdle,” The Irish Times, 3/18/99)
At A 1996 Counter-Terrorism Event Gore Said: “The Bottom Line Is That President Clinton And I And The Members Of This Commission Have Pledged To The Families Of The Victims Of Terrorism That We’re Going To Take The Strongest Measures Possible To Reduce The Risk Of Another Tragedy In The Future.” (Al Gore, White House Briefing, 9/5/96)
Clinton/Gore Administration Used Warrantless Searches:
Clinton Administration Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick: “(T)he Department Of Justice Believes, And The Case Law Supports, That The President Has Inherent Authority To Conduct Warrantless Physical Searches For Foreign Intelligence Purposes And That The President May, As Has Been Done, Delegate This Authority To The Attorney General.” (Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, i>Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. House Of Representatives, Testimony, 7/14/94)
In 1994, President Clinton Expanded The Use Of Warrantless Searches To Entirely Domestic Situations With No Foreign Intelligence Value Whatsoever. In A Radio Address Promoting A Crime- Fighting Bill, Mr. Clinton Discussed A New Policy To Conduct Warrantless Searches In Highly Violent Public Housing Projects.” (Charles Hurt, “‘Warrantless’ Searches Not Unprecedented,” The Washington Times, 12/22/05)
“One Of The Most Famous Examples Of Warrantless Searches In Recent Years Was The Investigation Of CIA Official Aldrich H. Ames, Who Ultimately Pleaded Guilty To Spying For The Former Soviet Union. That Case Was Largely Built Upon Secret Searches Of Ames’ Home And Office In 1993, Conducted Without Federal Warrants.” (Charles Hurt, “‘Warrantless’ Searches Not Unprecedented,” The Washington Times, 12/22/05)
President Bill Clinton: “(T)he Attorney General Is Authorized To Approve Physical Searches, Without A Court Order, To Acquire Foreign Intelligence Information For Periods Of Up To One Year …” (President Bill Clinton, Executive Order 12949, “Foreign Intelligence Physical Searches,” 2/9/95)
Meanwhile, Polling Shows Americans Support President Bush’s Decision On Wire Tapping:
“(A Rasmussen Reports Survey Found) Sixty-Four Percent (64 percent) Of Americans Believe The National Security Agency (NSA) Should Be Allowed To Intercept Telephone Conversations Between Terrorism Suspects In Other Countries And People Living In The United States … Just 23 percent Disagree.” (Rasmussen”>http://www.rasmussenreports.com”>Rasmussen Reports’ Web site, Accessed 1/6/06)
— Eighty-One Percent (81 percent) Of Republicans Believe The NSA Should Be Allowed To Listen In On Conversations Between Terror Suspects And People Living In The United States. That View Is Shared By 51 percent Of Democrats …” (Rasmussen”>http://www.rasmussenreports.com”>Rasmussen Reports’ Web site, Accessed 1/6/06)
The FISA Court Does Not Provide Flexibility Needed To Fight The War On Terrorism:
President Bush: “(T)he (9/11) Commission Criticized Our Nation’s Inability To Uncover Links Between Terrorists Here At Home And Terrorists Abroad. Two Of The Terrorist Hijackers Who Flew A Jet Into The Pentagon, Nawaf Al Hamzi And Khalid Al Mihdhar, Communicated While They Were In The United States To Other Members Of Al Qaeda Who Were Overseas.” (President Bush, Radio Address, Washington, D.C., 12/17/05)
— 9/11 Commission Report: “On January 15, (2000) Hazmi And Mihdhar Arrived In Los Angeles. … After The Pair Cleared Immigration And Customs At Los Angeles International Airport, We Do Not Know Where They Went. … We Do Not Pick Up Their Trail Until February 1, 2000 …” (”Final Report Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States,” The 9/11 Commission Report, 7/22/04)
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: “The Operators Out At NSA Tell Me That We Don’t Have The Speed And The Agility That We Need, In All Circumstances, To Deal With This New Kind Of Enemy. You Have To Remember That FISA Was Passed By The Congress In 1978. There Have Been Tremendous Advances In Technology … Since Then.” (Attorney General Gonzales, Press Conference, 12/19/05)
The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol: “Remember Moussaoui? Remember August 2001? The FBI Wanted To Go To The FISA Court To Get Surveillance Capabilities Based On What They Found On His Computer, And The Justice Department Decided No. Now, The Patriot Act Did Not Change That Standard Of FISA …” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/18/05)
— Kristol: “I Wish Bill Clinton Had Done This. I Wish We Had Tapped The Phones Of The People Of Mohammed Atta Here Into The United States If We Discovered Phone Calls From Afghanistan To Him. That Was Why 9/11 Happened. That’s What Connecting The Dots Is.” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 12/18/05)
— 9/11 Commission Report: “The Agents In Minnesota Were Concerned That The U.S. Attorney’s Office In Minneapolis Would Find Insufficient Probable Cause Of A Crime To Obtain A Criminal Warrant To Search Moussaoui’s Laptop Computer. Agents At FBI Headquarters Believed There Was Insufficient Probable Cause. Minneapolis Therefore Sought A Special Warrant Under The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act To Conduct The Search … FBI Headquarters Did Not Believe This Was Good Enough, And Its National Security Law Unit Declined To Submit A FISA Application.” (“Final Report Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States,” The 9/11 Commission Report, 7/22/04)
Bush Administration’s Wiretapping Authorization Has Been Successful:
“Officials Have Privately Credited The Eavesdropping With The Apprehension Of Lyman Faris, A Truck Driver Who Pleaded Guilty In 2003 To Planning To Blow Up The Brooklyn Bridge.” (Peter Baker, “President Says He Ordered NSA Domestic Spying,” The Washington Post, 12/18/05)
(My previous posts on the subject are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
Who is this Al Gore you speak of?
Mr. Gore’s concern about the prospects of a president’s act being illegal seems only to extend to Republican Presidents. I wonder why?
Next time they will have Al Gore and John Kerry speaking together for twice the moral authority of either speaking alone.
Two times zero is still zero, but just think of all the things that might have happened in this alternate bizarro universe of the reality based community.
Its too bad Dan Rather is no longer around to cover the story that might have happened. It could be true.
Given all that Jeff has written about this and all that has been said on numerous blogs about the details and various caveats/interpretations the general public should have a pretty clear picture of what has transpired. The left may longingly hope this constitutes criminality and will probably never change their mind but you would think that people like Al Gore, supposed leaders who desperately hope for increased credibility and audience, would finally come to realize that they simply look more unhinged and pathetic. You would think.
MikeD,
Perhps the Democrats have decided to become a “niche” party?
Jeff
Sadly, you can list all the cases or instances that show how wrong IGORE is, and the MSM will not validate the truth. But just as all the other instances of outrage shown by the left in the previous 5 years, the ROVIAN machine will rear it’s head and defeat them once again. Very nice post Jeff…..And oh by the way, you do matter…..
And Al Gore deftly positions himself for the ‘08 run.
It’s like watching a guy paint Elvis, or Dogs playing poker on a swatch of black velvet.
Pure artistry.
No we’ve got Wolf Blitzer asking Bob Barr about impeachment.
It’s Bob Barr that raises my bile the most in this little play. Hasn’t he already done his part, pushing dubious impeachment proceedings down the country’s gullet, helping to further this self-destructive culture of political retribution? I wouldn’t care if Al Sharpton were in office right now, I think the past 30 years of shadowing every presidency with the spectre of the grand take-down is doing more harm to our country than any one president could ever do.
Perhps the Democrats have decided to become a “niche†party?
corvan:
They do seem to be intent on that, don’t they?
I was amazed the crowd didn’t stampede for the ritual stoning of the symbolic devil.
This would be the Algore who stood silently while the administration he was in rifled through FBI files, used the IRS as a political tool, made phony criminal charges against critics, and wiretapped their political opponents?
Yeah, that’s a load of moral authority.
Stephen Green has a bag of diapers loaded with the same moral athority!
Misread that headline. I thought it said “Gore Shuts the Fuck Up and Falls Down a Well.”
Disappointing.
Jeff,
I, unfortunately, read the whole thing. he also hit on the Abramoff debacle, the “Bush” lied about WMD’s and various other “sins of the Bush Administration”. The guy was playing to the choir, I’m not sure if what he says means diddly squat anymore.
I do think the AP is slipping, though, that they allowed this unqualified assertion in their report:
Has this ranting at least been getting him laid? Then I could see some sense behind it.
– Psssttttt …. Al…… Al…… Turns out we’re the only ones that did widespread under Clinton…. Bush is targeting known Al Qeada agents….
– Yeh….I know you’re committed already….. but we gotta pull back on this…. its gonna crash hard…. `member Rather….. hey…. you don’t look so good…. you ok…..
Note: Just how many more Rovian “rope-a-dopes” is it going to take before the Dembulbs get off stuck on stupid?
And How Many Times Do We Have to Ask The Republican National Committee To Stop Capitalizing Every Fucking Word Of Their Talking Point Memos?
So what ol’ Al is saying is that even if Osama himself wants to reach out and touch his main man in the States, we shouldn’t be listening?
I thought so.
i fisked the speech.
here:
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/01/fisking-gore-exposing-gores-lies-and.html
Bug Bang Hunter  That’s all they got…
– Damn JD…. That was cutting edge, erudite and totally off the fucking topic.
– But hey. I don’t blame you. the Dhimmy’s march on in their self implosion campaign. Now the public will get to see just what was going on under Billy Bob when he wasn’t busy getting his apple polished. Mail incursion, IRS retribution for political reasons, FBI files reminecent of Nixons “enemies list”. Yeh….. real smart move. And whats the big payoff you get for all this bad PR.
– Lets see. Going in front of the electorate and giving them all the good reasons why you want to hobble the President so he can’t eavesdrop on known Al Qeada agents.
– You guys really need a Liberal version of Newt to lead you, or you’re going to dissapear as a viable party and join the ranks of Roswell worshipers….
TW: “children”. Yeh…. speaks for itself….
And How Many Times Do We Have to Ask The Republican National Committee To Stop Capitalizing Every Fucking Word Of Their Talking Point Memos?
More times than we have, apparently.
The good news is that Algore has shown repeatedly since 2000 that he has the tinnest ear in the entire universe.
If Algore thinks a story can hurt Bush, it only means the story was DOA several months before Algore gave his red-faced rabble-rousing, Moveon felatiating speech.
Given all that Jeff has written the general public still don’t see it his way. Nuttyness indeed.
– No no.Its great. I really hope they keep this blasting-myself-in-the-foot campaign going through the 2006/2008 elections.
– Wonder what PR mental midget in the moonbat ranks is leading the parade. Now they’re even getting into areas that could have bad repercusions in the eyes of the public on Hillery’s flegling campaign. Come to think of it, maybe its the far lefts way of trying to torpedo her Presidential bid. They had to know all the crap under Billy Bob would come out if they opened this bucket of worms. Sometimes it seems like all the village idiots in America suddenly escaped and formed the Democratic party.
wordsoup: heavy
Every word was a lie. Including “Al” and “Gore”.
Although it was a nice touch when he referred to “the ignorant masses”. But he forgot to mention the eavesdropping done on our trading partners in Seattle in ‘94. That info was given to Democrat corporate donors. In fact, I’m hard-pressed to name one aspect of the government that the Clintons/Gore didn’t treat as personal property.
“Would you want a President Hillary to have these powers?” Please. They did have them. And they took turns either neglecting and abusing them. This is why the Clintonista argument “Character doesn’t matter” is so wrong. You can have all the checks and balances you want, but these amoral grifters will blow right through them. Sometimes character is all that matters. And a power-mad Maoist shrew like Hillary or a mentally-unbalanced demagogue like Al Gore couldn’t buy any integrity if you gave them million-dollar gift-cards to Character-Mart.
MLK Day has become a traditonal airing of craziness, like that harvest festival in Bolivia where people beat the crap out of each other, or the fertility rites in India that call for villagers to pelt each other with rocks, or the log-riding festival in Japan in which guys in hoppi coats are flattened by ten-ton trees.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
If you want a true impression of Al Gore, just turn the sound down on your TV when he is on the screen. He is definitely a short bus rider. There are some serious wiring flaws in this man’s brain.
Usually at least one wingnut attacks the man and says that Hoover’s war against him was justified.
Groucho Marx, if he could see the talking points and cast of characters that is all that remains of the party of Roosevelt and Truman would cry, “Nobody would pay a nickel for that!”
The republicans are adrift from their conservative base. But they still have most of the right ideas.
The democrats are adrift, period.
TW = “any”. An order of magnitude above “none”, which is what options the Left brings to the debate.
I’ll try to address as much of the post as possible….though unfortunately, I won’t get to everything.
Gore makes it clear that he can’t prove this accusation definitely, because we aren’t certain that any of the mandates of the secret executive order have been carried out. But if the secret executive order has been instantiated in any way, then the law has been broken. As Gore said:
(By breaking the law, both Gore and I mean disregarding the mandates in FISA. And yes, you will likely say that is isn’t correct based on the AUMF argument. Putting aside that for the moment, I would argue that the FISA mandates are still law until changed by the legislature or overturned by the judiciary.)
As to the second point in your paragraph, yes, there were times that FISA rules were followed even after the once-secret executive order. And there were also verly likely times that FISA rules were not followed, based on the once-secret executive order. Gore (and many of us) are concerned about the legality of the times that those rules weren’t followed.
FISA is not “the legislative branch able to control the tactical and strategic aspects of waging war”. This is a case of balancing the right of the government to collect foreign intelligence and the right of the American citizen to privacy. American citizens have privacy rights (see the 4th amendment). The executive has the right to gather foreign intelligence. But the executive doesn’t have the right toarbitrarily eavesdrop on citizens. There must be some sort of cause to allow for eavesdropping on citizens (which, btw, is substantially lower in the FISA courts than what is necessary in a domestic, criminal investigation). So a FISA court has to authorize the executive to eavesdrop on an American person. If there’s no FISA restriction, then the executive has unfettered power to violate any citizen’s privacy rights by just saying “national security”. My apologies for the basic FISA primer, but it seems to be necessary if you think that FISA is an example of controlling “tactical and strategic aspects of waging war”. Congress isn’t moving pieces around on a Risk board, they’re balancing the right of the executive to gather intelligence with the right of citizens to privacy.
FISA has provisions for if we are at war. And oddly enough, it doesn’t say anything like “this statute is totally null and void if we’re, like, at war or under threat, existential or internal, or something”. Something to consider during the incessant cries of “OMG!1!!!1 WE ARE AT WAR!!! FISA is teh suck!”
Blunder? The White House claimed that the AUMF implicity was the statutory authority to put aside certain FISA regulations. Daschle said that they asked for that ability as part of the AUMF and was denied, thus shooting down a central administration argument that Congress implicitly allowed this. He called the administration on their weak argument. And that’s a blunder?
Though your point is probably that, by making this point, Daschle is saying that he didn’t want to give the President the “authority to listen in on coversations about who might be in those safehouses”. But we have had that ability before the secret executive order, and it’s clear that FISA doesn’t stop the President from being able to listen to Al Qaeda. Again, a serious discussion of what is actually gained by loosening FISA restrictions is important (I won’t go into it in this post, but previously discussed it here).
So wait….Gore is saying that parts of foreign intelligence gathering that have been a staple of intel work for decades is “a threat to the very structure of our government”? Really? Here is what Gore said:
It’s easy to criticize what Gore didn’t say, or even imply. He obviously was talking about the President deciding to ignore FISA, not about intelligence gathering. He is clearly not saying that “foreign intel gathering that has to rely on picking up one end of the conversation in the US…is a threat to the very structure of our government”.
See the Daschle comments, mentioned before re: the AUMF implicit authority argument. And I’ll add some of Gore’s comments from the speech:
There’s some more stuff that I don’t have the time to comment on, and then you end with the GOP talking points that try and push the canard that if someone has respect for 4th amendment privacy rights and respects current law that is an attempt to balance the rights of the executive to gather foreign intelligence with the rights of the citizen, they aren’t serious about terrorism. There’s nothing further from the truth, but that the current spin that’s being pushed by yourself and the GOP.
I’m sure Dow, DuPont or one of the other major chemical manufacturers can supply a surfactant to knock down all that foam.
And at a volume discount most likely.
Nor acknowledge it Todd. But then, the MSM doesn’t really matter any more, does it?
actus:
Odd, it looks more like the “wingnut” in question is merely noting that MLK Day has become less about remembering a good man and more about people spewing “craziness” all over the place.
There’s some more stuff that I don’t have the time to comment on,
Geez Llama, what? do you have a 30 1b turkey in the oven and you don’t want to get on a tangent and risk over-crisping it?
Al Gore has all but secured the “ninny” vote. Ninnies vote for ninnies. Look it up.
Sorry Llama School … but this jumped out at me;
In other words, Gore (and the rest of your Leftist fellows) actually have nothing to go on except your faith in the Bush Administration’s capacity for perfidy to go on that the law was broken. Yet, time and again, we see you and your friends screaming that the law was “clearly” broken. Strangely enough, I have been laboring under the impression that for one to be convicted of something, you have to actually prove he broke the law. I am unaware of any time or place in American history when a person was convicted for “possibly” breaking the law.
Perhaps that’s why the Left-wing activists masquerading as journalists in the Press insist on refering to the program as a ”Domestic Wiretapping” program (even though it focussed exclusively on International calls); calling it what it is, an Al Qeada Surveillance program, would only expose the bankrupcy and fecklessness of their position and kill the Left’s impeachment fantasies. We’re witnessing a fear-mongering campaign by the Left and their Press allies to convince the American people that the Bush Administration is monitoring their calls for no other reason than it enjoys violating Americans’ Constitutional rights.
<ul>Daschle said that they asked for that ability as part of the AUMF and was denied, thus shooting down a central administration argument that Congress implicitly allowed this. </ul>
This is incredibly disingenuous. How is that possible? The AUMF was passed less than a week after 9/11 and bodies were still being pulled out of the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center. What’s more, Daschle was briefed on the NSA’s Al Qaeda surveillance program from the onset and the record shows he said and did absolutely nothing, while others (like James Comey and the FISA Courts’ Chief Judge) were asking for audits and other assurances. Yet Daschle, Reid and their allies in the Press and Democrat Party expect us to believe that they passed the AUMF with the belief that the President would direct the nation’s intelligence agencies to ignore Al Qaeda communications if one party is in the United States, even though the attacks were launched from American soil?!
Really? Why don’t y’all try selling me another bridge …?
Either way, yes, FISA governs the gathering of intelligence vis-a-vis US persons (citizens and permanent residents). If the person at the US end of the conversation happens to be a Yemeni on a student visa or a Ghanian on a visitor’s visa, there’s no need for a warrant at all. But that’s neither here nor there; the controversy centers entirely on whether or not known United States persons in the United States were intentionally targetted for surveillance without a warrant from the FISA courts.
Note that this is something not even the New York Times has alleged, even though it has heavily implied it. The major (and ridiculous) example they cited of an entirely domestic call being surveilled by the NSA was that of a roaming (belonging to a non-American network) cellphone user who happened to be in the United States when he/she made/recieved a call from another location within the United States. In fact, it is this (roaming is an activity exclusive to cellphone networks) and everything else we’ve read that leads me to believe that the primary area of concern with this program is mobile/cellular communications where the identity of the user is far less of a sure thing.
I believe we (both on the Right and Left) can safely assume that upon discovering a number on an Al Qaeda member’s laptop, the NSA immediately tries to ascertain the owner’s identity. Should the owner of the phone number be identified and he/she is discovered to be a US person, a FISA warrant can/should be applied for.
Note here that we have no idea whether or not the NSA’s legal staff applied for a FISA warrant upon confirmation that a caller/callee was an US person because such information is classified. For example, if a number they found on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s palm pilot is discovered to belong to the home address of a US citizen in Springfield IL, the NSA would probably have to apply for a warrant to surveil, 72 hours later if necessary. There is no evidence that they did not do this – in fact, the huge amount of FISA warrants applied for by the Administration suggests that they did do this.
But what if the number belonged to an American network cellphone, prepaid? A FISA warrant requires the identity of the person to be surveilled, his address(es), the line, etc. to be submitted as part of the documentation supporting the application before it can be granted, reflecting the fact that FISA was passed in 1978.
In the absence of such information, should the NSA simply forget about surveilling that phone? Please answer this question; if the NSA comes across an American prepaid cellphone number +1-(215)-XXX-XXXX whose owner cannot be determined, should the NSA surveil that number without a warrant until it can determine its owner (even if it takes weeks) or should it just forget about it (and not act on any information obtained from its surveillance) because a warrant cannot be obtained with the information at hand?
And again; it is obvious that machines are heavily involved in the monitoring as the amount of data to be sifted through must be enormous, probably in terabytes per minute. There are simply not enough people in all of Fort Meade to be monitoring these calls. So, my educated guess would be that the NSA’s computers monitor the Al Qaeda linked lines and then independent of any further human input follow up on the callers and callees of these lines. The surveillance programs would probably monitor for keywords (in many different languages), calling patterns or other such triggers and respond by dropping the number altogether if nothing interests it further or alerting a human analyst if it finds something interesting. In other words, chances are that there is no human involvement in the day-to-day decisions on the numbers to be surveilled. These are selected by the computer as the case warrants.
In this case (the most likely case), FISA has not been violated. Note that this surveillance program must also be surveilling non-domestic calls. If a machine is making the decisions as to which numbers to surveil and only forwards the number to human analysts after something raises a flag, then no law was broken; even if the phone conversations of an American citizen had been surveilled. It simply does not meet the bar of a known US person being intentionally surveilled without a warrant.
Furthermore, we do not know whether or not any safeguards are built into the system to prevent the unauthorized surveillance of known American citizens’ communications. We do not know if the surveillance program spits out any US numbers it finds to another program/module to identify and bring to the attention of analysts who then forward to the legal people the details of the targets (if they happen to be US persons) so a FISA warrant can be obtained from a court.
In other words, Llama School, MF, Anonymous Liberal, etc., while many people are focused on defending the Al Qaeda Surveillance program on the basis of the President’s innate Article II powers and the authority granted by the AUMF, I am asserting that you have not got even the hint of a case that the President broke the law; whether it be FISA or the Constitution. All you have are allegations based on your faith (sincere though it may be) that the Administration is a fount of evil.
Consider the fact that the White House (as is SOP for truly top secret national security programs) duly informed the Majority and Minority Leaders of both the House and the Senate and the Chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and furthermore, also, in addition, informed the Chief Judge of the FISA Courts.
And again, consider that not only was the program audited upon the FISA Court Judge’s expression of concern about possible abuse, it was audited again to allay the concerns of the Deputy Attorney General (James Comey) when Ashcroft was unavailable to take part in the re-authorization of the program. Both audits discovered no instances of abuse and the program was continued with the blessing of both Comey and the FISA Court Chief Judge. So it was certainly within the prerogative of the Congressional members in on the program to request audits or even get legislation passed to outlaw the program if they so wished.
So the question is this; if the details of the program satisfied the Chief Judge of the FISA Court that it violated no law (especially his particular area of responsibility and experties; FISA), why should we pay any attention to Left-wing second-guessers (e.g. Al Gore) who are not privy to a fraction of the information necessary to proclaim that any law has been broken?
Another question for you, Llama School, MF, Anonymous Liberal, et al; Is it that you honestly believe that under cover of surveilling Al Qaeda contacts, the NSA, under direction of the President, is monitoring Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Micheal Moore, Robert Byrd, Barbra Streisand, George Soros, Cameron Diaz, Bill Clinton, etc.? If not these guys, who do you think the President is illegally ordering to be surveilled, and why?
NO MORE IRAQS AND AFGANISTANS! NO MORE NSA!
WE DEMAND WACO AND RUBY RIDGE!
LET’S GO AFTER THE REAL TERRORISTS, RED STATE BIBLETHUMPER REDNECK WALLMART-SHOPPING GUN OWNERS!!
Jeff, it doesn’t really matter if your unique interpretation of FISA is technically correct. Uncontrolled Administration spying on Americans should be opposed by everyone who considers himself Conservative. How can anyone claim to be for less Government while simultaneously and cheerfully arguing for the Executive branch’s authority to unilaterally identify, search, prosecute and jail a vaguely-defined enemy combatant? Where are the conservative’s principles?
I have yet to see anyone on this board who disagrees with this statement jim, you can put your head back up your ass now.
Let’s all give jim a round of applause … for his excellent demonstration of how to pound a straw man into the ground.
How quickly the focus was taken from Gore.
I’ve got a feeling that ‘08 is the year that Al will finally defeat W. He’s just getting a jump on it.
– You know, if I was a member of a mentally challanged group whos sole purpose in life was the overthrow of a Democratic Republic, and the establishment of a Marxist based Utopian Socialism, I’d be worried about all those privately owned firearms out there amongst the citizenry too. *snort*
TW: Just set back and watch the Dembulb left crash and burn on this one too.
By and by, does anybody notice, that no one at CTU, needs any warrant to tap cell phones, breaking into secure databases from remote
locations, or even secure frequencies for
remote detonators on suicide belts (are those
even available on the open market(that was cool, only surpassed by Jack misdirecting the
terrorists, to the location of the assault team
Thanks to Samwise the junior executive). Anybody have any doubt that President Logan is kind of a blended Gore/Dean composite; who would releave Bauer in an instant, because he didn’t follow the numerous CTU protocols; and because he was supposed to be dead; dammit. Hell, if we’re commenting about fiction, lets make it interesting.
Bring it, Brother Knight!
Actus is out of gas, it appears.
Gasoline, that is.
“Someone lead me to the switch
that turns on the endless night.”
— Elvis Costello
SB: longer
and still uncut!
Always gratified to see someone with something to say, and articulating it well, being bashed by opposing voices who, since they cannot articulate their own position, resort to name-calling, all-caps shouting, and simply shoving onto the screen spurious angry text. It just serves the purpose of those who do not hate President Bush, to see those who do show forth their lack of mental powers. Thanks all!
Having something to say and articulating it well isn’t enough here, it also has to make sense and be backed up by a logical argument. You can stick your head back up your ass too.
Gore, eh? As in Gore Commission?
But can’t you people see? The Dems already have a slogan ready: BUSH SPIED, THOUSANDS DIED!!! or the corollary NOBODY DIED WHEN CLINTON SPIED!!! What, are all the bumper sticker printers suppose to just take a write-off?
Once I got over the shock of what was happening on September 11th, my very first thought was:
“Thank GOD Al Gore didn’t win”
Every time that man speaks, he validates that thought.
Jeff, I don’t have nearly enough time today to fisk this entire post (plus, I’d just be repeating previous comments), but I couldn’t let you get away with this whopper:
So let me get this straight, you are actually arguing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was never “meant to contrain the NSA’s foreign intel work”? That is so astoundingly wrong that it boggles my mind. FISA’s sole purpose was to constrain the NSA’s foreign intel work. The NSA (under Nixon in particular) had been abusing that power. The goal of FISA was to put limits on who the NSA could spy on and how they could do it. Moreover, by its own terms FISA states that it is to be the “exclusive means” through which foreign intel surveillance involing U.S. citizens is to be conducted. FISA has nothing to do with law enforcement related surveillance which is governed by a totally different statute (Title III).
It amazes me that you manage to repeat this totally ass backwards assertion in every single post on this subject.
Here’s what’s really scary:
According to the results of the Rasmussen Report,
(by extrapolation)
49% of Democrats believe “The NSA Should NOT Be Allowed To Listen In On Conversations Between Terror Suspects And People Living In The United States.”
Possible Conclusions:
1) They’d prefer another 3,000 to x million dead U.S. civilians, if it meant they could regain political control.
2) Our schools have failed to inculcate the value of national self-preservation.
2) Some force of evil has introduced a substance into our water supply that has made a significant portion of our population into narcissistic idiots.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
There is a difference in monitoring and spying. There is a difference between theoretical and practical. There is a difference between war and a civilian “crime”. There is a difference between an enemy combatant, non-combatants and illegal combatants. Yes, it would have been crystal clear had our congress used the magic words, “We declare war on those who attacked us on 9/11/01”. Anonymous–read my piece on monitoring in The Truth and send me a reply. I would be glad to engage in a debate on FISA and the NSA.
Anonymous Liberal, do you have any proof, any at all, that the NSA intentionally spied on known US persons without warrants?
Furthermore, have you any proof, any at all, that domestic calls (i.e. Charlotte to Biloxi) were monitored under this program?
In other words, have you anything to back up your belief that the law was broken?
Thanks for the response Martin.
Two issues. First, it’s highly likely that FISA was broken (as why on earth would the administration assert that they don’t need to follow FISA regulations and then say that the program has helped catch people like Iyman Faris if they haven’t broken FISA regulations). Second, even if the administration is just making an academic point (we can break it if we want to, but haven’t yet), it’s still cause for concern and debate, as the President is asserting that he can break the law.
FISA makes no distinction between a call where one person is in the US or if both people are in the US. For example, do you lose your fourth amendment privacy rights if you make a phone call to Canada?
How is this not possible? The administration could have asked to put aside FISA restrictions as part of the AUMF, and Daschle could have said no. Neither the administration nor Trent Lott have denied that this occurred. And as for the last sentence, this is another example of the way many are trying to misrepresent the story. FISA does not force intelligence agencies to “ignore Al Qaeda communications if one part is in the United States”. They simply need to get a warrant, a warrant from a court that rarely denied warrants in the past, and a warrant that is retroactive for 72 hours, which allows the gov’t to eavesdrop on someone. (By the way, for the commenter that referenced the show 24, since each season is only 24 hours, CTU doesn’t need warrants since it’s within the 72-hour warrantless wiretapping grace period.)
That’s up to a FISA judge to decide. Though if the owner can’t be determined, then one can’t say that the owner is a US person or not. That would probably put itswiretapping in a legal gray area (is it domestic or foriegn)…and if it’s tied to Mohammed, then I wouldn’t be surprised if it was legal to wiretap it until they figured out the identity of the cell phone owner. If it was foriegn, then they could tap w/o limits, if it was domestic, then they’d have to make a case to FISA (noting that the number was in Mohammed’s palm pilot, any other knowledge of the potential suspect, etc.)
The intentional surveillance bar is only one of the bars in FISA. See here, under subsection (f) re: the definitions of “electronic surveillance”. The first definition (1) involves intentional surveillance, but the second definition has no such bar. Also note that Alberto Gonzalez isn’t making this argument:
I’m not clear on this…didn’t Comey resist parts of the program, and they had to go to Ashcroft for approval instead? And I don’t remember reading anything where the Chief Judge of the FISA Court said that the executive order didn’t violate any laws (but I may have missed that in the slew of FISA related articles).
My guess would be no. But, by saying that the executive doesn’t have to go to a FISA court to get approval for domestic wiretapping, it allows the government the ability to do this. And this can be easily abused by any administration.
from today’s story:
Ah, I see the AP has corrected it’s earlier reporting, which implied Bush had simply won the election.
Llama School, can you point to a case where the NSA targeted, without FISA approval, any purely domestic communication? The NSA has mandate to surveil the communications of non-domestic targets. Unless listening to both sides of such a targeted conversation is somehow out of bounds, what is the basis for claiming illegality?
The argument is that they did not follow FISA regulations because they simply did not apply. None of their statements in any way concedes that Iyman Faris was wiretapped without a warrant. If Iyman Faris called a number in Hamburg that the NSA was monitoring under this program and they traced it back to him, surveilled him and then arrested him, then the program did help catch Iyman Faris. It does not matter whether or not the NSA could positively identify him immediately and therefore applied for a FISA warrant to surveil him, or they could not identify him in the first instance and surveilled his number without a warrant.
Second, the Administration asserting that FISA does not apply due to the nature of the program, that it is superceded by the AUMF or that the President’s Constitutionally based responsibility to protect the nation from attacks (whether from foreign or home soil) trumps FISA is not the same thing as the Administration asserting that the President can break the law. There is a major difference.
It is still a misnomer; referring to the program as a ”Domestic Wiretapping” program is a deliberate rhetorical and propagandistic sleight of hand by the Press to confuse the public into believing that their calls are being indiscriminately eavesdropped on by the NSA on the orders of the President for some nefarious purpose. It is meant to subsume the fact that the only calls being monitored are International (the exact opposite of domestic in this context) in nature and secondly the only numbers that come to the NSA’s attention are those numbers that call or are called by numbers found on Al Qaeda member’s contacts lists and their derivatives.
Daschle could all too easily be lying straight through his teeth. This is not the first time, and the Administration (and Lott) could have very good (political) reasons for keeping its powder dry on Daschle. Either way, you cannot deny that Daschle was informed of this program from the very beginning, and he said and did nothing to indicate that he was opposed to it or even concerned that US persons were being targetted without warrants. Other people demanded audits – he did absolutely nothing. Notice that not even he, even though he was in on this program until his ouster in 2004, is saying that he was aware of any instance where the NSA intentionally targetted known United States persons in the course of the program.
And again; this 72 hour thing is a canard. The fact that the Government can surveil a number (of a known United States person) 72 hours in advance of a warrant being approved does not apply when the owner of that number cannot as yet be identified to be a United States person. Second, as a whole lot of people have pointed out time and again, it takes significantly more than 72 hours to prepare a FISA warrant application – it often takes weeks when the situation requires a response within a matter of minutes. That’s an entirely different issue from what happens once the application reaches the judge’s desk. What happens to information obtained on day two of surveillance when the FISA warrant is approved on day nine because the warrant application was only completed on day eight?
No. FISA does not provide for an application being granted without the number owner’s identity. FISA Court Judges actions are constrained and exclusively governed by FISA’s provisions. The government must satisfy certain requirements; one of which is the identity of the target of surveillance. FISA Court judges cannot just make it up as they go along. Secondly, consider the practicality of it; the machine may be sifting through thousands of numbers with unknown owners; doesn’t it strike you that getting warrants for all these numbers (apart from unnecessary) may quite frankly not be possible?
As for the bar provided by subsection (f)-2, it has been held by every single court that has adjudicated this issue (both prior and after FISA) that the President can order surveillance without going through the courts for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. This is why the NSA can monitor without court order the communications of non-US persons wherever they may be and there is no controversy about it. Otherwise, anytime the Kremlin called a payphone in the United States, or someone uses a payphone to call a number in Iran, the NSA would have to apply for a warrant to listen in on that call because neither party has consented to being surveilled. If one end of the conversation is outside the United States (and since the calls being monitored in this program are exclusively international or completely foreign – this is always the case) and the other end happens to be a number with an unknown owner, the bar has not been met. Especially if the number being monitored happens to be the foreign number – surveilling a number does mean that you’re monitoring calls both incoming and outgoing.
No. My understanding of the story is that Comey resisted authorizing the Al Qaeda surveillance program in his capacity as the (Acting) Attorney General while Ashcroft was ill, unless he had assurances that it was implemented and executed in a way that did not violate the law. This led to a suspension of parts of the program and tighter restrictions were placed on it in a revamp that had the heavy involvement of Comey. According to your source, the New York Times; “The Justice Department then oversaw a secret audit of the surveillance program … The audit examined a selection of cases to see how the security agency was running the program. Among other things, it looked at how agency officials went about determining that they had probable cause to believe that people in the United States, including American citizens, had sufficient ties to Al Qaeda to justify eavesdropping on their phone calls and e-mail messages without a court warrant. That review is not known to have found any instances of abuses.”
And finally, the FISA Chief Judge expressed reservations at the beginning of the and an audit was carried out. No abuses were discovered and the program continued. If indeed he still objected to the program, he could have very easily gone to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and told them all he knew. He would have been amply protected under whistleblower statutes.
[…] or else engage in extraordinary rendition (which, you’ll recall, was once enthusiastically embraced by noted neocon Al […]