« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Key Dem Urged NYT Reporter against Running Warrantless Wiretapping Story
Here's another nugget from Eric Lichtblau's new book.
It's well known that The New York Times held the story about the warrantless wiretapping program for more than a year. A concerted lobbying campaign by the administration at first convinced editors at the Times not to run the story in late 2004. But Lichtblau adds a new detail about how one of the few Democrats who had been briefed on the program seemed to take the administration's side of things.
The administration's main contention (beyond lying about there being no dissent about the legality of the program) was that reporting the existence of the program would compromise it and tip off the terrorists. In his book, Lichtblau tells how a few months after the story was held, he happened to be covering a House hearing where he heard Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) argue passionately for stronger civil liberties safeguards in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
Lichtblau saw this as an opportunity to question Harman about the warrantless wiretapping program, since Harman, as a member of the "gang of eight," was one of the four Democrats who'd been briefed on it. He writes:
I approached Harman with notepad in hand and told her that I’d been involved in our reporting the year before on the NSA eavesdropping program. “I’m trying to square what I heard in there,” I said, “with what we know about that program.” Harman’s golden California tan turned a brighter shade of red. She knew exactly what I was talking about. Shooing away her aides, she grabbed me by the arm and drew me a few feet away to a more remote section of the Capitol corridor.“You should not be talking about that here,” she scolded me in a whisper. “They don’t even know about that,” she said, gesturing to her aides, who were now looking on at the conversation with obvious befuddlement. “The Times did the right thing by not publishing that story,” she continued. I wanted to understand her position. What intelligence capabilities would be lost by informing the public about something the terrorists already knew – namely, that the government was listening to them? I asked her. Harman wouldn’t bite. “This is a valuable program, and it would be compromised,” she said. I tried to get into some of the details of the program and get a better understanding of why the administration asserted that it couldn’t be operated within the confines of the courts. Harman wouldn’t go there either. “This is a valuable program,” she repeated. This was clearly as far as she was willing to take the conversation, and we didn’t speak again until months later, after the NSA story had already run. By then, Harman’s position had undergone a dramatic transformation. When the story broke publicly, she was among the first in line on Capitol Hill to denounce the administration’s handling of the wiretapping program, declaring that what the NSA was doing could have been done under the existing FISA law.
Harman did say in an appearance on Meet The Press in 2006, after the story broke, that she "deplored" the leak that led to the Times story. But she said that the president's public confirmation of the program's existence after the Times story had allowed her to consult with "constitutional experts, the former general counsel of the CIA, some of the excellent staff on the House Intelligence Committee." She continued: "then I learned, although I’m a trained lawyer, about some of the serious legal issues that I have been raising ever since."
Josh
Zachary
Thank God Pelosi blocked her from leading the house intel board. She's like a cannier Gelatinous Jay.
March 19, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Jane Harman still registered as a DEM?
March 19, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jane seems to be all over the place with her opinions! I looked up her background on votesmart.org and noted a JD from Harvard and myriad of Council positions. How someone of her ilk couldn’t see the blatant illegality of these programs boggle the mind. Do our politicians undergo a lobotomy on swearing in or does exposure to Washington sap their reasoning powers?
March 19, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com
New Polls! New Vids!
Remember To Vote Each Week!
March 20, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why hesitate to say it? Harman was just another sellout to the Bush administration - concerned first about her political career and fear that she would be seen as unpatriotic if she didn't back Bush - to hell with the privacy rights of Americans.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
March 19, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you card carrying dems surprised?? err no disrespect intended...
Harman comes out of the same wing of the Dem party as the Clintons .... DLC
I consider myself an indie even I knew that....
March 19, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
She continued: "then I learned, although I’m a trained lawyer, about some of the serious legal issues that I have been raising ever since."
She also learned what a stooge and otherwise useless dope she is.
March 19, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love it;we refer to those who were briefed on it,"the gang of eight."Everyone knows that gangs don`t know much about the law,so how could she see the illegality?Our august congress seems to act like a gang.My mind just keeps getting boggled,the more I read about this.
March 19, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another factor at work here may be that her district is major center of Defense Department contractors who employ thousands of wage earners (you know, those people of whom Bush is unaware). She has always been very protective of the jobs in her district, and a threat from the administration to start moving contracts elsewhere (with big repercussions for the local economy) might have have scared her into submission. Maybe not, but it's something to think about.
March 19, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well this illustrates the circumstance where these senators were complicit. Plain and somple. And the fact that Naggio and Quest as well as At&T state that the wiretapping started in February 2001 makes Janes narrative of the events even more interesting.
It is as if Jane is saying, I supported the FISA violatiions before 911, after 911, and up and until the NYT's broke the story.
What I would like is an examination of the minutes of the testimony before the gang of eight and see if the testimony was perjury or not?
Or was their a clear quid-pro-quo? I mean did large telecoms donate? And how much does the Gov. pay for the wiretaps as were described in the EFF suit?
March 19, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"(T)he terrorists?"
There's no such entity. There are certainly potential terrorists of many stripes, but "the terrorists" is a Republican/neocon frame.
Please don't perpetuate it.
March 19, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harman got a tough primary challenge. That may account for some of her changes in position.
But Paul, whether you say it or Lichtblau does, the part about the Gang of Eight is, I believe, incorrect.
Pelosi knew about some of this from her having held the same slot before Harman did, but I think the administration, which would have been illegally limiting the briefing to ONLY the Gang of 8 when the type of activity required full briefings of both intel committees, was also going beyond even the arguable back up of briefing the Gang of 8, and was instead ONLY briefing the intel chair and Ranking member (at least, on the Dem side that was all)
March 19, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jane Harman would have us consider 9/11 Truth sites as providing material support to terrorists, which would leave them open to "enemy combatant" treatment at the hands of a would-be unitary executive with a pocket full of executive orders and perverse signing statements. The more I learn about her, the more I distrust her.
The same is true of Jay Rockefeller.
They both talk a good game, but act like closet Republicans.
Whoever they're beholden to, it ain't us.
March 19, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before the 2006 elections, Jane Harmon was sounding a whole lot like Lieberman. I called the DNC and ranted about her one day to the voice mail after I saw her on a talking heads show - she was basically parroting Republican talking points. She's behaving a little more like a Democrat now, and I (yesterday, maybe?) donated a small sum to the DNC or the DCCC, I forget which, to reward good behavior (mainly about the House refraining from caving on the telecom immunity issue).
March 19, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daffy old DLC women. We seem to have many of them.
At least boycott her husband's products:
Harman International Industries -
* AKG Acoustics - microphone/headphones
* Audio Access - A/V controllers
* Becker - car infotainment
* BSS Audio - signal processing
* Crown Audio - pro amplifiers
* dbx Professional Products - signal processors
* DigiTech - guitar products
* DOD Electronics - guitar processors
* harman kardon - home/car audio
* Infinity - home/car speakers
* JBL - home/car speakers & amplifiers
* Lexicon - digital processing
* Margi - car multimedia
* Mark Levinson - home/car audio
* QNX - real-time OS software
* Revel - home speakers
* Soundcraft - mixing consoles
* Studer - digital recording
* Wavemakers - voice recognition software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harman_International_Industries
March 20, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many government contracts does Harmon International Industries and its subsidiaries have? Many parts of the government are very interested in detecting and processing sound.
Greenmail anyone???
March 20, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
My belief is that Harmon and others sold out to Bushcheney canard that "we would be hit again unless we suspend our basic values " This is a slippery slope, Harmon may as well be a neo con -because the net results of her leadership has been to further strengthen the assault on our civil liberties.
"It takes a long spoon to sup with the dEVIL "
I further believe that Harmon & other democrats are complicit in Geneva Convention violations ....
March 20, 2008 4:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
And people wonder why impeachment is off the table.
March 20, 2008 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Harman was more than a right leaner way before the Chimp-in-Charge and Darth Cheney assended to the throne of Exectuive Power.
While Harmon is a registered DEM in the RED portion of California, she has always been a fear-driven corporatist at heart.
It is funny to see the nation become aware of what folk in her home state have been screaming for a decade plus.
March 20, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Reps have to prove their worth to constituents every 2 years. Better bring home the bacon, or you're out on your ass.
March 20, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink