Is there any reason that Congress can't bring John Ashcroft in to testify about the surveillance program? I assume Ashcroft is up and about now since he is in the consulting business.

I like to put things into simple terms, like what one might encounter in a family or neighborhood. So bear me as I try an analogy here. And let me know if it has any merits.

Let's suppose your kid was diagnosed with a dread disease. And the local medical center proposed a treatment (or maybe it was only a series of invasive tests to further the diagnosis - or maybe both). But instead of fully informing you about the risks and benefits to your child of said set of tests/treatments, they simply asked you to sign off on forms every so often. And they also asked that you keep all of this under your hat as it was a research protocol that they wanted to keep exclusive to the doctors in charge. And so you were asked to "sign off" on this set of procedures, which you really didn't understand and couldn't discuss with other doctors... But you had been assured your child was at grave risk, and this "was the only way the child could be saved."

Maybe this is simply restating the obvious. But since the obvious is getting so convoluted that perhaps ordinary citizens cannot readily follow it, it seems very important - to me - to find ways of explaining to ordinary people what's going on.

Seems to me something like this occurred, except that it related to legalities and ethics and bypassing the constitution. The right of everyone to know enough to make an informed decision.

This observation has been made elsewhere, but the above exchange really demonstrates it: In testimony, Gonzales seems to be acutely aware of the difference between the term that Members of Congress, the media and even the White House use, "Terrorist Surveillance Program" and the term which he prefers to use, "these particular activities." Here's a spot on the White House web page where the contrast is strikingly clear.

When Gonzales says in testimony that "it's complicated" it seems to be because the TSP is just one subset of a larger program, or because the TSP is the entire program, but "these activities" are the subset of TSP which the Non-Intelligence-Committee part congress knows about.

Gonzales cannot give Congress "complete comfort" that Ashcroft was briefed on "The Program," but he was briefed on "these particular activities." The scary part is the idea that there is a part of TSP that was so illegal that even Ashcroft wasn't fully informed about it.

So they started with a simple program and then added questionable activities as they went along. Perhaps spying on political adversaries in the name of national security?

It's curious that Gonzales was in on all the questionable legality of Program X in 2004, but AG Ashcroft was not. Why was Gonzales authorized to know these details and Ashcroft cut out?

Isn't it a crime to hide such dirty business during the AG's comfirmation process? Or at least cause for automatic dismissal?

It may be just me but I find it disturbing that Ashcroft was kept out of the loop on aspects of this and that TOM DELAY received a private briefing on the program.

What on earth does Delay have to do with any of this?

It seems to me (TheraP) that those so convoluted to think secret police can work in an open society where the laws are in place for an open society regardles of the subjective elitism self-proclaimed idea that some know better than others. Here is the problem that the founding fathers and subsequent lawmakers understand----namely human nature and the nature of political power. Humans are flawed and they seek power and will harm those around them in the name of the belief they are doing right.

In your neighborhood metaphor scenerio...(this one true)
I know of a father who was strong and righteous, he believed his adult middle aged son was an alcoholic, although the son was not. He demanded and bullied part of the family to an intervention without consent or agreement or knowledge of the son's spouse. Half of the son's siblings went along the other half disagreed and sat silent. The son was not an alcoholic, he was in mid life crisis due to many issues one was an untreated emotional problems due to an abusive father.

The abuse once recognized further split the family in that some members cannot come to terms that there was abuse or that the abuse was destructive, the another part of the family just tried to get along while the most abused family members tried to find a way out.

The father died, and the subsequent funeral took place but because of a lack of reconcilation it was a horrible funeral. That is real life.

I have come to terms that these authoritarians in the WH, and other points are the abusers in our society, they seek to hold tight the existing system, mostly economic privalege but also political and social power and status and fear the whole breakdown of what they call society. They are willing to disregard, throughout and manipulate the Constitution for it means little or nothing to them, unless they can use it for their power. They have turned their fear and see the enemy within, a threat to them and unless this is reconciled, unless these abusers and controlled they will not cease, for they will hold that they are righteous in the end justifying their any means.

RWN, I endorse your analogy. Yes, abuse can tear a family apart. Some members see the unvarnished truth and others want to see only a rosy fantasy - and to brand the "truth teller" as crazy or an addict or whatever. And yes, we have a situation where some want to abuse others and they want to hold all the cards. It is an authoritarian undermining, from a national point of view, of what should be a society of consenting adults.

I completely agree that it is important to help people see how some want to pull the wool over their eyes - to point out problems, which "aren't there," in order to conceal worse problems, that are there!

Excellent points you've made. Thanks.

The "sc" gives you a "hand."

Mueller met with the Pres alone on March 12.

There are four paragraphs of redacted information associated with this meeting.

I have suggested before, and believe more so now that until March 10, 2004 The Program was being run by Cheney with the President uninvolved. The President was forced to get involved only by the resignation crisis. I am unsure whether he knew (or even today) knows the details of the program.

I think he was kept out of the loop for deniability.

Please read Gonzales' testimony where he calls the TSP "The Program authorized by the President", and answers questions about the President's authorized program as if it were just the TSP.
We already know that the TSP was invented to selectively declassify a discovered portion (Risen and Lichtblau) of the single NSA-driven Surveillance Program.

Lets go back to Gonzales testimony and see what is the legal basis he tries to justify the TSP with:

The Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF).

I believe that what the Administration was trying to do and will try to do is base all of the NSA-driven Surveillance Program on the AUMF. They will argue that their spying had "congressional authorization", and Cheney and his team were just crafting the details. In this scheme, The President is "above reproach" (and impeachment) because he never directly authorized domestic-domestic wiretapping.

Rather, when The Program was exposed in December 2005, they came up with the selective declassification plan, peeled off a less unsavory portion of the original Program (Wiretapping only when a foreign "terrorist" was involved), and dubbed it the TSP. I bet the TSP is the only part of this mess "Authorized" directly by the President.

I have nothing other than circumstantial evidence for this speculation, but this is my take....

GONZALES: "Let me just say I believe everyone acted in good faith here. All the lawyers worked as hard as they could to try to find a way forward, the right solution. But, yes. I mean, the view was is that these activities had been authorized".

This is an interesting wording, “the view was is that these activities had been authorized”.

To use the family analogies this is the equivalent of when your teenager did some unexpected bone headed thing and you say “you know you shouldn’t have done that” and they reply “you never told me I couldn’t”

It sounds like maybe we shouldn’t accept as fact that AG Ashcroft actually signed off on anything for two years but the WH “view” was he approved.

I agree with drational. But I go further. I think War Powers are at the heart of so much that has gone wrong here, so many power grabs, so much subversion of the constitution. You have a situation where WAR is used as the excuse for so much else.

And that makes you wonder, since war with Iraq was on the table, according to O'Neill, during the first week of the administration whether war was always on cheney's mind as a way of expanding executive powers.

If so, the real war crime here, is the planned invasion of another country, for the purpose of accumulating power in the hands of a very few within one nation, over the rest of that nation and the world.

Just a question you have to ask yourself.

War: a means to oil; a means to presidential power; a means to surveillance (and is it not possible the surveillance began before 2002?); a means to controlling elections, etc? Ask yourself if it's possible. And unfortunately, cheney plus rove plus junior seems to be a recipe for making the possible become a reality.

What I'm seeing in the portion of Gonzales' testimony above is a man desperately trying to find some way to answer a question in front of CSPAN cameras without disclosing the extent of the *full* surveillance and wiretapping, or "Program X".

WHITEHOUSE: ...Ashcroft was read into and authorized the program at issue for two years prior to your visit to him in that hospital?

GONZALES: ...**I'm referring to intelligence activities** that existed for a period of over two years and ... General Ashcroft had authorized these very important intelligence activities for a period of two years... (snip) But there are facts here... They're complicated. And **we have had discussions in the Intel Committees about this issue**.... (snip) ...But there are additional facts here ...And it's complicated, but... (snip)...from the inception, we believed that we had the approval of the attorney general of the United States for these activities, **these particular activities**.
[ Emphasis added ]

My take of Gonzales' parsing and equivicating is summed up in the phrase "these particular activites".

What that says to me is that the "intelligence activities" were a part of a larger Program -- the "activities" were something which had already been admitted to and described as TSP.

Comey, when made aware of the extent of the full Program, couldn't approve it. Ashcroft backed Comey's decision -- because as far as Ashcroft was concerned, Comey **was** the AG, and Ashcroft acted as if he believed in the legal protocol of Comey assuming the power of the AG's office.

Gonzales could not talk about the full Program, because of its illegal nature. All he could refer to were the unspecified "intelligence activities", and try to blow smoke at the Judiciary Committee by making refernces to closed-door sessions of "Intel Committees".

The full extent of the criminality of these murderous clowns might be revealed if the extent of the "Program" were known. The door needs to be kicked in on this "Program", and the whole rotten structure of the Bush cabal may start to fall.

Code = attack

Since this whole thing started, I've been hoping for someone to come forward, to accelerate the denoument. But it occurs to me, reading this excellent thread, that the surest way to have this happen is by removal. It is clear fredo is the glue for cheneys conspiracy.
Having to replace him insures the sunlight this horror requires.

NCdem and Jens

You have illustrated what we all know by the Cheney-Yoo connection.

Cheney has been running the show since day one with the help of merry hench people like Mr. Y, or Karl Rove.
Bush is a shill and a damned good one; he doesn't gum up the clockworks with independent thinking. And his want for vendetta against perceived "enemies" works like a charm.
All of these operatives have fully demonstrated their willingness to kick the disadvantaged and the defenseless...
Look at Karl beginning with his hiring of homeless people to show up at a black tie Democratic fundraiser (just after he'd been trained under the watchful eye of dirty trick master Jeb Magruder) and wrapping with his voter obstruction tactics against the elderly, poor, and disenfranchised.
Cheney, et al have only one moral guideline, "Am I likely to get away with it, or am I likely to get caught?"
So, the skill set required is management of the "get away with it" option. That's it.
They've learned they can.
Ashcroft doesn't bother the gang one whit.

The question I have, all these noble resignation threats, what audit or oversight kept them from resigning? Surely they didnt trust the crooks to comply on a "trust us" basis?
I really am curious. Who gets what type of report?

We know that Cheney and Addington were using Yoo and the OLC to get their torture and other programs approved. The involvement of Ashcroft and others at the DOJ outside the OLC could well have been limited. Some of this is reasonable - the DOJ is a large organization even excluding the other agencies it oversees, such as the FBI - some of it is not.

Ashcroft is not the brightest bulb in the tree, nor the most curious or energetic. I suspect he was too trusting that senior staff, such as John Yoo - fully in league with Cheney and Addington from day one - kept him fully informed, especially after 9/11. Ashcroft's personality traits would have been well known to Cheney, who directly oversaw all top appointments. Which means that he got in Ashcroft the limited skills he wanted in the govt's top law enforcer, who could approve and/or investigate most of the programs critical to Cheney. Just as he now has in Gonzales. But unlike Gonzales, Ashcroft had a respect for the law and Congress that was too much for Cheney.

We know this dust up occured after Cheney's man, John Yoo, left OLC and Goldsmith and Philbin took it over, and after Comey became second-in-command. It's their work that seems to have led Ashcroft to realize how much was going on at the DOJ that he may not have known or been fully briefed about.

Ashcroft began to appreciate how much out of the loop he'd been kept and what had been approved in his name. (Though he is probably too "loyal" to admit under oath much knowledge of this.) He had refused to re-authorize the suspect intelligence program(s) just before he went into emergency gallbladder surgery. Comey refused to authorize them as Acting AG. Ashcroft again refused to re-authorize them from his hospital bed.

Comey and the top staff at the DOJ, apparently including Mueller, threatened to resign unless the program(s) were significantly altered. Over a two week period, changes were proposed and promised, which led Comey and Ashcroft to authorize a revised progam. But who knows whether those changes were implemented or are still being adhered to?

Is any one else annoyed (or even disturbed) by the fact that Fredo keeps refering to the former Attorney General as "General Ashcroft"? The AG is not a member of the uniformed military (yet) and holds no rank. Does Fredo think of himself as General Gonzales? I'll bet he does. I remember that horse's ass Biden buying into that crap too, during a hearing in 2005 and refering to Fredo as "General". HE'S NOT A GENERAL!!! He's a lawyer, a prosecutor. That's all.

Gee. I'm a member of the General Public. Maybe I'll start going by General Eoll. Wheeee.

This might explain the excerpt from Gonzales's most recent written clarification of his testimony in a letter to Senator Leahy on August 3, which otherwise appeared to be an inexplicable attempt to put a little spin on a ball that wasn't yet visibly in play:

"I also recall that, prior to the time I departed, General Ashcroft briefly mentioned a concern about security clearances for members of his staff regarding the NSA activities that were the subject of the President's order."

I don't know (or can't recall!) to which precise President's order he is referring. But if it is one that he has previously identified as having to do solely with TSA, he may have further compounded his problems here.

Despite all the obfuscation of Gonzales et al, some things seem to be slowly, slowly coming together.

This is all very interesting, and makes me wonder to what extent (if any) the threat of mass resignations within DoJ over “Program X” influenced the removal of other DoJ staff (in addition to prosecutors), and perhaps FBI. And if Program X is in any way related to DoJ dismissals, there may be linkage between Program X, prosecution of Dems in an effort to control election outcomes.

Some questions :

For Gonzales:

1. Immediately provide a list of all DoJ separations, (including deaths, retirements and forced or voluntary terminations etc.), including name, title, length of service, principal duties, date of separation, disclosure of any separation agreements, and name of replacement, reason for termination, and if forced, termination by whom and the rationale for the action for years 2001- 2007 YTD. “Accepting responsibility” for the decisions is not a substitute for providing this specific information and while it may be possible to claim “I don’t recall” or “I don’t know” during live testimony hearings, there is no impediment to finding out and responding immediately and completely.

2. Provide above information for all DoJ employees demoted, promoted, reassigned, disciplined, commended during same period.

3. Identification of 1 and 2 above employees with any and all prosecutions or investigations of election fraud, Federal, state and local politicians, political candidates, political organizations, lobbyists, lobbying firms, government contractors, Federal, state, or local government employees or agencies, providing information of the target of investigation and allegations, and/or case identification status and resolution.

4. Identification of any individuals in 1 and 2 with any involvement in development of policies, review, approval, monitoring or any other aspect of Program X.

5. Has any aspect of Program X been applied in prosecutions or investigations of described in 3? If yes, provide details, including information pertaining to court approved warrants if any.

6. Prior to your visit to the hospital of the incapacitated Ashcroft, did Ashcroft specifically and personally, approve all aspects of Program X or not, yes or no? Note, for this purpose, knowledge/participation of other DoJ employees (e.g. Yoo) does not constitute specific approval by Ashcroft. For those aspects of Program X approved by Ashcroft provide documentation. If no, what aspects of Program X not specifically approved by Ashcroft were contemplated, implemented, or terminated? What is their current status? What programs were modified to gain Ashcroft’s approval, and what was the nature of their modifications? What oversight and approval outside of the executive, was sought, granted or denied for each? What was approved, by whom, when? For programs in existence prior to Jan 2001, what programs were modified? What approvals were sought, granted or denied for such programs by whom, and when? What aspects of Program X were operational whole or in part prior to approval outside of Executive and when?

7. What specific constraints exist on each program to ensure civil liberties? What mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance? What are the names, titles, and status of those charged with monitoring compliance? What training has taken place for those monitoring aspects of Program X? What violations have occurred, intentional or unintentional? What potential violations have been noted, investigated, or dismissed?

8. What intelligence programs in, run by, or contracted by NSA, NSC, DoD, CIA, FBI, DHS and other government agencies remain outside oversight by FISA or Congressional Intelligence Committees?

For Meuller:

1. Substance of conversations in redacted notes.

2. Substance of disagreement with Gonzales over implementation of Program X and actions taken to amend program to his satisfaction.

3. His concerns regarding program and any instances of potential abuse he may be aware of.

4. Is he aware of any pressure from WH, OVP, DoJ or others to fast track or slow walk FBI investigations or prosecutions in cases with political implications? If so, details?

5. What is his perspective of the competency of the fired prosecutors?

For Ashcroft

1. What aspects of Program X did you find objectionable? Why?

2. Was this the same program you had been approving? If so what changed your mind?

3. Were there any occasions in which you believed Yoo (and /or others within the DoJ), the OVP, OLC, or others within the executive branch withheld or did not disclose information that interfered with your role as AG with regard to Program X?

4. Did you receive any request, inquiries or pressure from WH, OVP, members of Congress, state or local politicians for the removal of prosecutors? From others (lobbyists, PACs, donors etc)? If so, from whom and on what basis? What actions did you take?

5. What is your opinion regarding the competency of the dismissed prosecutors?

6. While AG, did you ever receive pressure from WH, OVP or others to fast track or slow walk investigations or prosecutions with political implications? What was the DoJ’s policy with regard to such cases under your direction? How is this different from your understanding of the DoJ’s policies under Gonzales?

Sorry for the length… just thinking out loud.

riptide

Sorry about the error in the last comment. If I may be allowed to make a correction "Ashcroft lost the Missouri Senate race." *whew*

I have been wondering too why there is no discussion of having Ashcroft testify. He has been mysteriously silent in all of this. Is it possible Congresional staff has interviewed him and know what he will/would say, and also know it proves the perjury charge?

Like the "message" of fairness wont be lost on Ashcroft. He's not the sharpest, but he's not stupid either.
I hope Ashcroft is old school enough to want to watch lightning strikes hitting fredo while hes being flattened by the bus.

I foresee Sen. Whitehouse someday being in the White House which would make it the Whitehouse White House or White House Squared.

So how is it that the AG of the United States is not fully informed, in detail, of such a sweeping plan of surveillance? At least in theory, the AG is the chief legal advisor to the citizens of the United Staes and is charged with protecting the rights of citizens. If, for whatever reason, the AG doesn't undertake to fulfill that legal and constitutional obligation to the American people, then it would seem someone needs to ascertain just why that did or didn't occur. And if it did occur then the AG needs very much to justify in comparative constitutional terms the decision of his or her office.

In all fairness to the person holding the office there is a need to make some difficult decisions. The required outcome is for citizens to not have their freedoms compromised while simultaneously granting to government the authority necessary to assure our national security. One of these requirements must take precedence over the other when they are in conflict. In my opinion our freedoms must be protected. What is the value of security if the security regimen is structured in such a way so that even our most casual public utterances or our daily comings and goings are subject to monitoring by government. We need to remain secure in our freedoms. If government has a means to know the words we use to express how we feel then it has a chilling effect on our freedom of speech and expression. The mere expression of what we think cannot be compromised due to a fear of retribution by persons who may disagree with us and who may also have the means to influence or harm us either directly or indirectly.

A clear example of how our freedoms are threatened can be seen in our very own Congress of the United States where recent comments by elected officials were openly critical of other duly elected persons on the sole grounds that those persons were not of the christian faith. I cannot think of a more serious threat to our fundamental freedoms, made by elected public officals no less, and cite it as but one example among many, of just how gravely our democracy is threatened.

The American people need to understand very clearly just how certain persons are using fear to control public perceptions and are fully intent upon using that to gain power to promote an ideology that is in conflict with what we really believe and alternatively for the purpose of illicit financial gain.

What is email marketing? The effective method of getting new leads for your business.