« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
The President's Secret Program: A Timeline
Ever since James Comey's testimony Tuesday, there's been a renewed burst of speculation about just what secret domestic surveilance program(s) the administration has been running.
Marty Lederman over at Balkinization offers a great rundown of the best guesses about what the administration has been up to.
But Comey's testimony and new details in The New York Times this morning mean that it's now possible to lay out a timeline of why all of this came to a head in March of 2004 when the program had been going on for more than two years at that point.
A TPM Reader writes in to lay it all out:
We’re starting to see a timeline emerge on the confrontation between the White House and Justice on domestic spying.The first date to mark on your calendar, I think, is October 3, 2003. That’s when the Senate confirms Jack L. Goldsmith as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. In June, with Goldsmith’s nomination before the senate, John Yoo had left his job as the deputy at OLC to return to his teaching gig at Boalt.
Fast forward to December 11, 2003, when Comey is confirmed as Deputy Attorney General. He immediately assumes a more aggessive posture than his predecessor, Larry Thompson. The Times reports this morning that “with Mr. Comey’s backing, Mr. Goldsmith questioned what he considered shaky legal reasoning in several crucial opinions, including some drafted by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo.”
But that was just the beginning. Thompson had not been authorized access to the details of the NSA program. But, reports the NYTimes, “Comey was eventually authorized to take part in the program and to review intelligence
material that grew out of it” (1/1/06). He set Goldsmith to the task of sorting through the program’s dubious legality. Goldsmith’s “review of legal memoranda on the N.S.A. program and interrogation practices became a source of friction between Mr. Comey and the White House,” the Times reports today. And we know from Comey’s testimony that by “the White House,” we mean, principally, Dick Cheney and David Addington.
Continued:
Up until this moment, Ashcroft had been signing off on the program every 45 days. That means his signature was last required in late January, shortly after Comey assumed his post, and perhaps even before he’d been authorized access to the program. Suddenly, the March 11 date comes into clearer focus. For the first time, trained and qualified attorneys within the Justice Department had conducted a careful review of the program. Comey took the evidence he had gathered to Ashcroft, as he testified on Tuesday: “A week before that March 11th deadline, I had a private meeting with the attorney general for an hour, just the two of us, and I laid out for him what we had learned and what our analysis was in this particular matter.” By the end of that meeting, Ashcroft and Comey had “agreed on a course of action,” to wit, that they “would not certify the program as to its legality.”Thereupon follows the late-night drama that’s already been exhaustively chronicled. I’d simply note that one of the people in that hospital room was Goldsmith. On March 11, the President made the determination that the program was appropriate and lawful, and reauthorized it without Justice signing off.
On the morning of March 12, the president, faced with open revolt, backed down. The Times reported on what happened next last year: “The White House suspended parts of the program for several months and moved ahead with more stringent requirements on the security agency on how the program was used, in part to guard against abuses. The concerns within the Justice Department appear to have led, at least in part, to the decision to suspend and revamp the program, officials said. The Justice Department then oversaw a secret audit of the surveillance program” (01/01/06). Comey’s testimony refines that a little. He claims that it was a matter of weeks before the program was brought into compliance.
There’s a sad coda to this story. On June 17, 2004, Goldsmith announced his resignation after scarcely a year on the job.
What to make of this long narrative?
Simply this. The warantless wiretap surveillance program stank. For two and a half years, Ashcroft signed off on the program every forty-five days without any real knowledge of what it entailed. In his defense, the advisors who were supposed to review such things on his behalf were denied access; to his everlasting shame, he did not press hard enough to have that corrected.
When Comey came on board, he insisted on being granted access, and had Goldsmith review the program. What they found was so repugnant to any notion of constitutional liberties that even Ashcroft, once briefed, was willing to resign rather than sign off again.
So what were they fighting over? Who knows. But there’s certainly evidence to suggest that the underlying issue was was whether constitutional or statutory protections of civil liberties ought to be binding on the president in a time of war. The entire fight, in other words, was driven by the expansive notion of executive power embraced by Cheney and Addington. And here's the kicker - it certainly sounds as if the program was fairly easily adjusted to comply with the law. It wasn't illegal because it had to be; it was illegal because the White House believed itself above the law.
PS: There’s hope we’ll find out what was really going on. I’d highlight this portion of Specter’s remarks from the hearing: “Mr. Comey, it's my hope that we will have a closed session with you to pursue the substance of this matter further. Because your standing up to them is very important, but it's also very important what you found on the legal issue on this unnamed subject, which I infer was the terrorist surveillance program. And you're not going to comment about it. I think you could. I think you could even tell us what the legalisms were. Doesn't involve a matter of your advice or what the president told you, et cetera. But I'm going to discuss it with Senator Leahy later and see about pursuing that question to try to find out about it.”
And then Leahy, in response: “We will have a closed-door hearing on this. Senator Specter and I are about to have a briefing on aspects of this.” Can’t wait to hear what leaks out of that.
Comments (123)
Peter wrote on May 17, 2007 11:09 AM:And yet, reputation shredded and credibility gone, John Yoo is still helping form fresh legal minds at Boalt Hall law School. His courses ought to come with a disclaimer to that effect.
anon, too wrote on May 17, 2007 11:12 AM:That assessment rings true and seems to tie all of the parts together.
However, I still wonder why the Director of the FBI, Mueller, was so central in all of this. Was it simply because the FBI is the investigative arm of the USA Office? Did the FBI do some of the investigation into what was going on? Were the FBI and DoJ concerned that any cases they might bring would be subject to being thrown out of court because of the illegal activities that might have been the foundation of any charges?
Katherine wrote on May 17, 2007 11:17 AM:It still wasn't legal after the changes. Just less blatantly illegal.
icarusflies wrote on May 17, 2007 11:17 AM:And yet again an excellent summary by a TPM reader. Democracy in action by a free and unrestrained press -- just that it happens to be in the form of a "blog".
Maybe, just maybe, this nighttime adventure will be Bush's blow job.
RandyR wrote on May 17, 2007 11:18 AM:Sorry no clever comments now.
Please Senators try to set this right. I think there is a NSA guy under my bed and he snores.
Seriously though,I got a copy of the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law that has been very hush-hush and I can't email it to Congress or the Senate. I keeps coming back after 4 or 5 days. I makes me wonder whose email is being messed with mine or Congresses.
And for those who wonder the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law is that benchmark that every one is saying thatIraq must pass but no body can see.
Philip the Equal Opportunity Cynic wrote on May 17, 2007 11:19 AM:The Law was written by Bearing Point, an American oil consulting company, even before Iraq elected their Parliment. It's a rotten deal, but our 150,000 troops will help them understand.
Peter, I'm sure John Yoo is very effective at teaching law. The law in question may come from pre-Magna Carta England or the Roman Empire instead of the US Constitution, but that's intellectual diversity for you.
conniptionfit wrote on May 17, 2007 11:19 AM:Kudos to the reader/author of this piece! My question, given the clearest evidence yet of deliberate, knowing, illegal action by the president and vice president, is WHEN will we get a special prosecutor appointed? When will Leahy and the congress act to ensure accountability for their lawbreaking? Gonzales keeps saying he's responsible, but there is no responsiblity without accountability and consequences. Every time these weasels slide free only encourages them to greater heights of hubris and lawbreaking. They MUST be held accountable, not only for their actions, but as an example to future lawbreakers. Appoint a special prosecutor now.
gussie wrote on May 17, 2007 11:20 AM:Codeword: debt. As in the constitution and the American poeple are owed a debt of honor.
"On the morning of March 12, the president, faced with open revolt, backed down."
I thought the un-certified program went forward for two or there weeks. Am I wrong, or confused? (Or both?)
melisa j rollins wrote on May 17, 2007 11:20 AM:Monica goodling is testifying next wendsday in the house judiciary committee.....cant wait to count the "i dont recalls".
MarkC wrote on May 17, 2007 11:20 AM:Can't Berkeley trade Yoo to Regent for a Law Professor To Be Named Later, a low draft choice, and some cash?
Supdog wrote on May 17, 2007 11:25 AM:Specter's remarks at the end are very promising, but given Arlen's track record (all bark, no bite), I'm glad Leahy's Committee Chairman.
Bush et al are going to spend the next 18 months trying to stay in office & out of prison.
Englischlehrer wrote on May 17, 2007 11:27 AM:Man oh man, things are heating up!
Spencer's Mom wrote on May 17, 2007 11:28 AM:"Maybe, just maybe, this nighttime adventure will be Bush's blow job."
Posted by: icarusflies
Unfortunately, it's the American people who are getting screwed, over and over again.
Just what level of illegality needs to be reached before we impeach Bush? Let me know, so I can stop asking...
Glenn wrote on May 17, 2007 11:30 AM:PEACE
Nicely done. Very very nicely done. Comey's story was certainly remarkable on its own, but this timeline analysis gives some much-needed context. Thanks to "a TPM Reader"!
Michele wrote on May 17, 2007 11:34 AM:Gonzales is a despicable person, but he's no fool. DOJ is now saying it will "stick" by Gonzales' sworn testimony on the NSA program despite Comey's testimony, which would seem to discredit it. Gonzales' testimony to Congress regarding the NSA program was highlighted on Frontline over the weekend. Gonzales very carefully only includes the "program the President signed off on" in his comments--in other words, the compromise program that they all had agreed on. He reiterates this statement, "the program the president signed off on," numerous times--often and awkwardly enough that some of the Senators on the panel became suspicious. When asked if there were other programs that DOJ disagreed about, he deflects and defers. In the end, he gave truthful, if incomplete, testimony.
So reassuring to know that the man who represents law and order in this country is adept at sticking to the letter of the law, while totally annihilating it's spirit. I hope Congress gets these guys, but I sincerely doubt they'll be able to unless they grow some massive cajones and go for impeachment. The very clear disdain this group has for Congress would seem to leave impeachment as the only option.
John Yoo scares me. Talk about an imperialist. How can he teach constitional law when he so clearly misses the main point of the document?
spinn wrote on May 17, 2007 11:35 AM:conniptionfit:
You're right. The President backed down, in that he said the DOJ could go back and make the program comply. But that took a couple weeks. So in that time, the un-certified program was presumably in effect.
cervantes wrote on May 17, 2007 11:36 AM:In order for George Bush to be impeached, he would have to start an illegal war of agression based on a campaign of lies, repeatedly violate the law and constitutional provisions governing search and seizure, violate constitutional protections of due process including habeas corpus, commit electoral fraud, betray the country by deliberately leaking classified information for political gain, interfere in criminal prosecutions to protect political allies, persecute opponents, and try to unlawfully influence elections . . .
Oh wait.
spinn wrote on May 17, 2007 11:37 AM:(er, that should've been to gussie. I misread the attribution.)
JEP wrote on May 17, 2007 11:40 AM:"On March 11, the President made the determination that the program was appropriate and lawful, and reauthorized it without Justice signing off."
That was a high crime, not a misdemeanor...
Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 11:40 AM:Keep in mind that the director of the FBI was both involved in this matter and also willing to resign over it - and also that Comey never mentioned any NSA officials. If the FBI is involved and not the NSA, then you know there had to be a very strong domestic component to the program in question. My guess is that the program involved spying on communications between American citizens without a warrant, which would be blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. However, that's just my speculation.
gussie wrote on May 17, 2007 11:44 AM:Thanks, spinn.
What confuses me is how Comey, who initially rejected the legality of the original (and undoubtedly outrageous) program, then certified the post-March program. I don't know anything about Comey except that he chose Fitzgerald and rushed to Ashcroft's hospital room ... but those seem to indicate a man of integrity.
So does that imply that the program post-certification--and still ongoing, I suppose--is perfectly legal? (Because, as Greenwald suspects, the authority to eavesdrop was granted by the AUMF, or something?)
Or am I falling for the sleight of hand about 'the program' again. Comey certified 'the' program, but he didn't certifiy the -other- program, or some such?
Sullynyc wrote on May 17, 2007 11:56 AM:maybe Specter will finally grow a pair, remember his oath to protect the constitution, from enemies domestic.
Holding breath...NOT.
Mary wrote on May 17, 2007 11:57 AM:SecCode: Snake, as in Den of...
from above
**********
Were the FBI and DoJ concerned that any cases they might bring would be subject to being thrown out of court because of the illegal activities that might have been the foundation of any charges
**********
Don't forget this older story in the blitz of the new ones.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html
In 2004, Baker warned Kollar-Kotelly he had a problem with the tagging system. He had concluded that the NSA was not providing him with a complete and updated list of the people it had monitored, so Justice could not definitively know -- and could not alert the court -- if it was seeking FISA warrants for people already spied on, government officials said.
Kollar-Kotelly complained to then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, and her concerns led to a temporary suspension of the program. The judge required that high-level Justice officials certify the information was complete -- or face possible perjury charges.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
The WaPo story says both Lamberth and Kollar-Kotelly, after being briefed, believed the program(s) to be unconstitutional and illegal and demanded that their courts not be tainted with the illegally acquired evidence. They believed Justice had put into place firewalls - only to discover, over two years into the program, that the DOJ firewalls were not actually in place or currently capable of being enforced.
So, whatever the analysis supporting positions, the factual representations being made to the FISA court by DOJ - representations the Court was relying upon to keep from being tainted by illegality - were false.
IMO - the FISA Court and its reactions were the driving force behind the urgency and the involvement of Mueller. One way, or another.
Baker's going to be the key if they can get testimony from him - which would be difficult with privilege, etc.
However, they might start with asking him to respond, without revealing internal deliberations and operational information, to the question that Moschella never actually answers in his letter dealing with written questions submitted after Gonzales' testimony to Congress (on NSA program), is correct:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/surveillance21.pdf
32.
Can information obtained through this warrantless surveillance program legally be used to obtain a warrant from the FISA Court or any court for
wiretapping or other surveillance authority? Can it legally be used as evidence in a criminal case? Has it been used in any of these ways? Has
the FISA court or any court ever declined to consider information obtained from this program and if so, why?
The purpose of the Terrorist Surveillance Program is not to bring criminals to justice. Instead, the Program is directed at protecting the Nation from foreign attack by detecting and preventing plots by a declared enemy of the United States. Because the Program is directed at a "special need, beyond the normal need for law enforcement," the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment does not apply. See, e.g., Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995). Because collecting foreign intelligence
information without a warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment and because the Terrorist Surveillance Program is lawful, there appears to be no legal barrier against introducing this evidence in a criminal prosecution.
Notice how Moschella/Gonzales never answered as to whether information from the illegal program can be used to get a FISA court warrant?
security code "warm"
regular lurker wrote on May 17, 2007 12:00 PM:I find it hard to believe any domestic spying program started after February 15, 2003, the day millions of people around the world protested the coming Iraq War.
Peace groups have long said they were under surveillance prior to the marches.
oleeb wrote on May 17, 2007 12:05 PM:Perhaps Goldsmith's resignation in June was because whatever accomodations were made to get Ashcroft's signature didn't meet the kind of standard Goldsmith could live with. He may have thought Ashcroft and Comey compromised too much. Just a thought. Someone ought to find and interview Goldsmith.
SF fan wrote on May 17, 2007 12:08 PM:For a full appreciation of John Yoo's thinking (and distortions of history), I recommend reading "The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11." It is a remarkable document that essentially argues for presidential powers and prerogatives equal to those of George III.
SF fan wrote on May 17, 2007 12:09 PM:For a full appreciation of John Yoo's thinking (and distortions of history), I recommend reading "The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11." It is a remarkable document that essentially argues for presidential powers and prerogatives equal to those of George III.
Charles B. wrote on May 17, 2007 12:13 PM:I believe that the scariest part about this entire episode is that a program so egregious that John Ashcroft would resign rather than lend his imprimatur to is now being monitored by the same fox (Gonzales) that was barred from the henhouse by Comey.
some dude named steevo wrote on May 17, 2007 12:13 PM:Michele, Gonzo made this qualifying statement about his testimony:
""None of the reservations dealt with the program that we are talking about today," Gonzales said then."
He will probably say that it wasn't the same program, or the program had changed into a new program to which he was now referring. Or he will come up with some more double-speak orwellian statement to shift the blame elsewhere.
I think Gozales is really in over his head, he just seems like an intellectual lightweight. But he seems to be comfortable playing the stooge, and there is now a certain Zen-like quality to his answers. I am just tired of his W-inspired smirk, which he sure displayed numerous times during his testimony.
SVL wrote on May 17, 2007 12:16 PM:"...What they found was so repugnant to any notion of constitutional liberties that even Ashcroft, once briefed, was willing to resign rather than sign off again...."
This all strongly suggests somebody thought Gonzo would do much better at that job than Ashcroft. Family reasons? Yeah, right.
Chris in NM wrote on May 17, 2007 12:16 PM:I'd love to see a parrallel timeline with Election 2004, and see if events correlate. I got the feeling these thugs (Rove) were tapping Democratic headquarters and big-time breaking the law
obsessed wrote on May 17, 2007 12:17 PM:Thank you! I hope we get to read a lot more brilliant and well-written analyses from this particular "TPM Reader".
Austin Cooper wrote on May 17, 2007 12:18 PM:"Mr. Comey, it's my hope that we will have a closed session with you to pursue the substance of this matter further.... I'm going to discuss it with Senator Leahy later and see about pursuing that question to try to find out about it."
Well.. if you want to accept that as a hopeful comment, go ahead.
Specter is the originator of the "Magic Bullet" theory. He's responsible for (at the least) *allowing* the Patriot Act revisions which permitted USA's to be replaced without Senate confirmation. His hair-splitting, equivical, go-with-prevailing-winds pronouncements on issues are well-documented.
Among my own people, I pray they have more spine and larger teeth. But does anyone really believe that Republicans are capiable of saving what's left of their own party?
A Republican senator would have to be willing to condemn the Sucker-Puncher-In-Chief. Risk taking strong, "unpopular with the base" positions. Wouldn't they?
Think that's going to be Arlen?
Airmon wrote on May 17, 2007 12:19 PM:OK, so the wiretapping program ( the one that has been admitted ) starts in Oct. 2001. Runs with tacit approval from the AG ( Ashcroft ) for a couple of years until late 03, when Comey and Goldsmith get to the DOJ and learn the details.
Comey lets Ashcroft in on what's going on, and after some White House machinations and threats of resignations, they manage to get the WH to make "changes" to the program that make acceptable to the DOJ.
Since then, Gonzales has testified in front of Congress claiming that there have never been any disagreement on the legality of "this program" , and Comey, Goldsmith and Ashcroft have all moved on to positions outside the DOJ.
That's it in an nutshell, right?
I think we're getting a bait-and-switch for programs.
Why wouldn't the White House, when threatened with mass resignations in the DOJ and FBI in response to its wiretapping scheme, change the program to the point that they consider it a different one? Those guys never give up that easily. Like the Total Information Awareness program, they just find another way to continue.
The WH works ( like the USA scandal shows they're willing to...) to move the offending people out of their positions, replacing them with "loyal bushies" like Gonzales, McNulty and Regent grads. As the staff in those positions change, they also work to make sure the new hires are unable to look closely at the program, since that's kinda what started the whole dispute in the first place. None of the inexperienced people they’ll put in these positions will know the difference.
With compliant appointees ( who, unlike Comey and Goldsmith, have no knowledge of program details, just in case…), they start another spying program that only involves the NSA so FBI chief Mueller isn't responsible for participating.
Voila! The FBI gets to wiretap under a program that's limited enough that they're willing to do it. The new AG is able to say that it's not the same program, and they NSA gets to use a different, more secret, less limited program to do their wiretapping. The new DOJ can't look too closely at the new program, even though they probably wouldn't anyway. Congress and the press gets to sniff around at a program that's easier for the WH and the DOJ to defend.
It's three card monty, NSA style.
Security Code: again - as in "they're lying to us, again".
Don wrote on May 17, 2007 12:21 PM:My sincere compliments to the TPM reader who did such a wonderful job summing this extraordinary story.
As at least one commenter above noted, this showdown had to have been over purely domestic, warrantless spying that did not involve any foreign nationals.
I can't imagine Ashcroft willing to resign over a surveillance program -- no matter how questionable -- of foreign nationals.
My 2 cents
Blackwatch wrote on May 17, 2007 12:22 PM:Wonder if this is related to the fighting between Powell/State and Cheney-Rumsfeld/Defense?
Scott wrote on May 17, 2007 12:27 PM:At what point does the weight of evidence become so great about the deceptions that led us to war, and the subversion of our civil liberties, that not to impeach Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, and others, itself becomes a moral scandal? I think we are long past that threshold.
Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 12:36 PM:Peter, I'm sure John Yoo is very effective at teaching law. The law in question may come from pre-Magna Carta England or the Roman Empire instead of the US Constitution, but that's intellectual diversity for you.
Posted by: Philip the Equal Opportunity Cynic
Date: May 17, 2007 11:19 AM
VERY well put.
tom wrote on May 17, 2007 12:39 PM:I wonder IF the President actually backed down after the threat of mass resignations. We are told that Comey and the President met privately and then that the program was magically fixed, and then everything was all right. Everybody at DOJ resigned over the next year or so.
If Comey won the day, why did he look so stricken and resigned when testifying to the SJC yesterday.
My suspicion is that the spying program has given the WH information that it can use to control all but a few political actors in Washington, including key members of the press. J. Edgar Hoover protected his position at the FBI through blackmail for decades, so this is not unprecedented.
I can think of no other theory that would explain the curious inconsistency and cowardice of the centrists in DC who move toward opposition to the WH and then suddenly get back in line.
Blackmailers still have the power to wreck lives even when they are weakened in every other way.
My bet is that the aspect of the wiretapping program that was so offensive to Ashbrook and Comey was that it was directed against Washington DC elites, including them, and that they were graciously given an opportunity to withdraw their objections.
littlesky wrote on May 17, 2007 12:39 PM:How do we know for certain that Ashcroft was actaully signing off on it up until that point?
Austin Cooper wrote on May 17, 2007 12:43 PM:"I'm sure John Yoo is very effective at teaching law."
Well, he can't *follow* the law... so, in the logic of these times, he's obviously qualified to teach it.
Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 12:44 PM:, that not to impeach Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, and others, itself becomes a moral scandal?
Posted by: Scott
It is making me physically ill to think of the decay and rot, and not only at the DOJ;
soap. Or fire.
Nell wrote on May 17, 2007 12:46 PM:@regular lurker: What are you responding to? The post clearly states that the program had been in place for more than two years by the time of the hospital drama.
mbbsdphil wrote on May 17, 2007 12:48 PM:Relying on Specter to follow up would be foolish. He has shown a clear pattern of dissing the administration publicly, then voting exactly as it wants. Or worse, turning a blind eye while his own staff surreptitiously rewrites laws to meet administration goals. He is up for re-election; while he may want to court centrist voters in PA, he won't want an RNC quietly vowed to stick it to him for not supporting their leader.
The flow of this note is persuasive. Ashcroft believed his President and his advisers and was committed to the "new urgency" post 9/11. He signed off on new-fangled intelligence program(s). In a hurry, only later did it dawn on him that he and his aides had never eye-balled each other long enough to realize that the sign-off was meaningless because the program had not been reviewed. That his second-in-command was denied access to those program(s), however, is grossly negligent on both their parts. Thankfully, Comey was more aware of what was required to do his job, and harder to say no to.
Note, however, that the street meaning of "deceit" is a likely component here. Yoo was chief deputy at the OLC for part of this time and he believes the president has monarchical powers unlimited by the Constitution that created him. He was Cheney/Addington's mole at DOJ and would have fought internal dissent and argued strongly that the program(s) were legal and necessary.
Goldsmith and Comey come in and do a real review of the program(s) and are gobsmacked at their illegality. Since "getting a tap" in the information age can involve copying entire data streams, not just a named target's telephone or e-mail, I suspect it was the scope of domestic collection activitites that was their prime concern. (And should be ours. We only have the President's word that Total Information Awareness and all its clones have been shut down simply because Congress claimed to defund "it".)
I would read Comey's private, hour-long sit down with Ashcroft as a behind the woodshed session. My guess is that Comey raised not just how fundamentally Goldsmith's findings contradicted Yoo's questionable advice. I suspect he raised the possibility that the WH lied to him about the intelligence operations he had been authorizing.
Something about the process had to have startled a conservative team player like Ashcroft. It had to have been so elementally wrong that it was first in his mind when he came out of a drugged state when in hospital and gave Gonzales and Card such a firm "No".
Last point. We have valid questions about how many programs are in question and their current and past operation. But the arrangements with Justice about changing them so as to comply with the law were based on George Bush's promises. How do we know the President kept those promises? Should we just trust him?
mo2 wrote on May 17, 2007 12:55 PM:Timeline perspective - was Powell bugged?
The days leading to Secretary of State Colin Powell's ill-fated Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were almost as problematic as the speech itself.
"I wish I had not been involved in it," said Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Powell's chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."
xargaw wrote on May 17, 2007 12:56 PM:I, like many, get so impatient wanting all the information to come out at once so that we can get to the WHOLE truth. However, it may be better in the long run for this all to unravel slowly as the election campaign unfolds. By next year, the GOP should be spending all their time trying to deflect corruption scandals instead of waging a presidential campaign. I doubt Bush will be impeached, but if he can be nuetered to do no harm and his rotten outfit can be fully exposed, it should give the American people all the reason they need to clean house of the GOP in Congress and the White House in '08.
Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 1:00 PM:Frankly, I think Yoo should be subject to some of the things he has argued are within the Executive's purview. Although I'm not a Hilary fan, Yoo's surveillance and torture at the hands of a Hilary Administration would be a fitting result for that legal Gauleiter.
Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 1:04 PM:Berenson's Apparent Mounting Legal Problems
OK, so this thing was illegal, and there were memorandum stating as such.
Here's what I would prefer there be some focus on: What is going on with the AT&T private counsel's apparent assertions that this was legal; and has there been fraud committed upon the Judge Vaughn court in re the domestic surveillance.
I have no respect for counsel who have asserted publicly that things are fine; and they know that these assertions in public are not legal memorandum, therefore not protected. I would like someone to take the Comey comments about the program not being legal, and put the questions to Sidley Austin's Berenson:
A. What is the basis for you to assert that this surveillance was lawful, as you have said in repeated public statements; yet the Comey testimony shows the opposite.
B. What is the basis for Berenson to assert to the court -- and the "basis" not to review the program in court -- that the memorandum is private; yet Comey is openly discussing the memorandum which indicates the opposite: The program was reviewed; there were memorandum; it was not lawful?
C. How does Berenson explain his statements on the legality of the program; yet the Comey memorandum shows that the program was not lawful, contrary to Berenson's assertions?
D. How was the data that was captured in these programs -- which Comey said was not lawful -- and how was the data used to support prisoner abuse, unlawful interrogations, rendition and other things?
E. Why was Berenson openly discussing rendition and taking risks; but he's reversed himself on the issues of rendition saying that he cannot publicly confirm or deny the program?
F. In light of the Comey revelations -- that the program was not lawful and data was not being legally acquired, stored, retained or managed -- how does Berenson justify confidence that there was "no problem" with the use of data to support rendition, prisoner abuse and illegal war crimes?
I have sat through this non-sense over the AT&T litigation, listened to Berenson's crocodile tears that the issues are secret; yet his assertions are not matched by anything that Comey or Judge Vaughn have said. There is enough information in the public domain to question whether Berenson in court filing has or has not lied to Judge Vaughn; and to what extent Berenson and other White House counsel -- contrary to Comey's assertions -- have pretended that these issues are "secret" all the while(apparently) knowing full well that the DOJ-Comey did not agree with that assessment; and that there were substantive legal problems despite Berenson's apparent assertions to Judge Vaughn that the program was lawful.
Time to put the spotlight on Berenson:
A. When was he aware of the Comey concerns with the legality of the surveillance;
B. When did Berenson and others meet after 2001 to change their position on rendition: From a position of publicly commenting on "risk taking" to fight an enemy; to a new position of "can nether confirm nor deny"; who was at this meeting; how was the new guidance from the White House provided; and what information had been disclosed publicly that prompted this meeting to go to a new policy of "can neither confirm nor deny" whether rendition was or was not being used?
C. When is Berenson and Sidley Austin going to publicly discuss their law firm's public statements on the issues of document retention; yet Sampson and others linked with the White House and RNC apparently had not information on document retention and the e-mails have not be retained. How did Sidley Austin justify that it was an expert on document retention; yet apparently the people in the White House and DOJ did nothing, yet There is enough of a relationship between Berenson and Sampson of DoJ that Sampson would know to ask for Berenson's assistance?
D. When Berenson was aware of the legal issues -- as Comey has laid out -- what did Berenson really believe was going to happen when the public and war crimes prosecutors discovered the relationship between [a] illegally captured data; [b] the use of that data to support prisoner abuse; [c] Comey' concerns with the legality of the data captures; but [d] Berenson's apparent public assertions that the program was lawful; yet [e] the legal requirements under Geneva from legal counsel to have ensured that the laws of war were respected, and that prisoners of war were not mistreated using information that had been illegally captured?
E. Once it was known that the issues Comey raised on issues of the legality or illegality of the program and surveillance was known, did no one at Sidley Austin, DoJ, or the White House counsel's office think that these might be issues which would be raised during a disbarment investigation?
F. Where is the DOJ OPR in this; when did Berenson and counsel in DoJ provide information to DOJ OPR on peer misconduct?
G. Once Comey's concerns with the legality of this activity were known, how does anyone in DoJ justify accepting the President's direction to block DOJ OPR from reviewing this issue?
H. How can anyone in the DOJ OPR, DOJ, White House counsel, or Sidley Austin possibly believe that anyone would believe counsel's actions in re this surveillance activity would not become the subject of a DC Disciplinary Board review?
I. What is the status of the DC Disciplinary Board review of Berenson, DOJ counsel linked with this surveillance, and other White House counsel that have publicly asserted this program was legal; yet Comey's public testimony in Congress contradicts these assertions which counsel have provided in the open media, outside the court, and intended for Congress to rely on?
J. What is the plan of Congress to haul Berenson before the committees to review what Berenson has or has not said (outside court, therefore not protected) about the legality of this program and surveillance; and contrast this with the memorandum Comey and GOldsmith were passing around?
K. IN light of the US Attorney e-mail [showing that White House legal, political, and public affairs were coordinating on issues], how does Berenson explain his apparent confusion about these legal issues, and apparent lack of understanding of what Comey was concluding; yet someone in the White House knew enough to ignore this information: Where was Berenson, what did new know about the memorandum, and how can he credibly justify confidence that he was doing something in the White House, yet he would apparently have us believe that he was totally unaware of what Comey was concluding: That the program was not lawful, in contravention to Berenson's apparent assertions to the contrary.
L. IN light of Comey's' revelations -- that the program and surveillance was not lawful -- how does Berenson justify confidence that the activity as appropriately classified given ORCON prohibits the classification of illegal activity, which Comey said was occurring with GOldsmith's concurrence?
M. How does Berenson explain the illegal data capture systems which Comey said were in place; yet the apparent confusion about these data capture systems as it relates to the issue of rendition, and the Italian prosecutors' attempts to prosecute CIA agents involved with the rendition of personnel from Italy: Does Berenson or anyone in the White House have any explanation how the Italians are getting no support; yet Comey has publicly stated that the method to intercept this data was not lawful, therefore (by implication) the use of that data to support rendition, kidnapping, and prisoner abuse also attaches with that original data capture a war crimes liability?
N. Which specific contracts with AT&T is Berenson aware that relied on the false assertions that the program was legal, yet Comey asserts the opposite: What contracts does Berenson know about that White House counsel were using to route data, transfer information, and ensure that AT&T subsidiaries had access to this information?
O. How was Berenson involved with the contracting effort to do media messaging analysis on the AT&T-subsidiary contracts: Was Berenson aware of the access provided to the intermediaries; how were the terms of the arrangement with the intermediaries similar or different than those provided to AT&T and Verizon?
P. Does Berenson or anyone at Sidley Austin or the White House have any explanation why the Verizon General Counsel would openly assert that the NSA was not restricted access; but then reverse themselves and go to a "no comment" mode?
Q. What is Berenson's view of the Nuremberg principles showing that legal counsel under the Germans was indicted and prosecute for war crimes when they were shown to have failed to prevent illegal activity. Does Berenson have any explanation how he plans to defend himself in light of the Comey revelations; or is this something that Berenson and Sidley Austin plan to play off as "not our problem"?
R. What is Berenson's knowledge of the DoJ, White House, EOP, and NSA's use of non-official e-mail and instant messaging systems that have not been retained; and how does Sidley Austin square Sidley's public statements on data retention requriements, but the apparent problem EOP, DOJ, NSA, and WHite House personnel -- apparent clients of Sidley AUstin -- in retaining this data as required under the Hatch Act: When did Sidley become aware that personnel who are not clients of SIdley AUstin had an apparent document retnation problem; and was there any effort of Sidley to ensure that clients were properly complying with their legal requirements under the Hatch Act?
sc: Weight: "The weight of evidence, in light of Comey's testimony, is shifting against Berenson."
GraciousP wrote on May 17, 2007 1:22 PM:So this program blew up early in 2004, an election year. We have no way of knowing who they were listening to. It could have been Dan Rather from CBS, or perhaps the Kerry campaign headquarters, since we really don't know, and they don't seem to want to tell, we have to speculate. If I had to guess, I would vote for a 21st Century third rate burglary, and the spying they were doing was of a political nature. History tends to repeat itself.
Xman wrote on May 17, 2007 1:23 PM:Does it matter what went on before 2004 or even in the 2 weeks until bush okay'd it?
Buck wrote on May 17, 2007 1:25 PM:In the latest re-authorization, didn't the bushies all get immunity for any law they and the cia may have broken in the past?
It might be helpful to ask: Could this program have been in effect prior to the 2002 elections. How'd that trial run go?
Austin Cooper wrote on May 17, 2007 1:26 PM:During the period of time when the eavesdropping program ran without DoJ audit -- authorized by Bush, rubber-stamped by Ashcroft, and before Goldman or Comey were involved...
>> What 'private' revelations have been leaked in the media, embarrassing Democratic party leaders or members of Congress personally? Or revealed details of strategy or deliberation? (Like the 'Pelosi in Syria' story, they might not have more than the briefest factual basis.) Who were the identified sources for such stories?
>> Has the above been noted for reporters, figures in business, education, science?
>> Have the above been noted for business competitors of major GOP campaign donors, or of competitors to, say, the Carslyle Group, or Haliburton?
>> Were there any occurances where activity tied to Democratic Party strategy, something relatively few people would have known, was preempted or countered by the GOP -- almost as if someone had advance knowledge?
>> Have any major organizations or prominent individuals, vocal in their criticism against the war or Bush personally, reported or complained about patterns of surveillance or harrassment which might show advance knowledge of their personal appointments, schedules or activites?
These are general, almost comically WAG, categories. It remains speculation that the White House would illegally direct use of a massive surveillance apparatus for personal, or partisan political, gain.
However... it's an interesting theory.
bordersmuggler wrote on May 17, 2007 1:33 PM:mbbsdphil
Correction. Specter is a Class III Senator, meaning we Pennsylvanians are stuck with the dissembling traitor until 2011.
Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 1:35 PM:I am wondering if the FBI was concerned about actual criminal prosecution of agents or management, or on the other hand just concerned that cases would be thrown out of court due to tainted evidence. To me, the latter seems unlikely, given the Administration's fondness for secret, non-court proceedings (like military tribunals). I concur that it seems like spying on US citizens was the issue, and that this concern may have been answered by moving that into the NSA's bailiwick (which is easier to keep secret, and to 'justify').
Node of Evil wrote on May 17, 2007 1:36 PM:I really wonder what Comey was so worried about, that when he went to meet with Card he took Ted Olsen with him as a witness? By that point the main danger -- that Ashcroft would sign in his less-than-coherent state -- was gone. In other words, what was Ted Olsen there to witness? I hope they dig into this question a bit more when they question Comey behind closed doors. Because there must be something rather untoward about what Comey thought Card might say or do.
paul lukasiak wrote on May 17, 2007 1:44 PM:I'd like to know what happened in the intervening week between the time that Comey and Ashcroft decided the program was illegal, and the visit to the hospital.
According to Comey "And at the end of that hour-long private session, he and I agreed on a course of action. And within hours he was stricken and taken very, very ill..." which means that the decision not to certify took place on Thursday, March 4th, the night that Ashcroft was hospitalized. Based on the testimony,("Over that week I communicated that as acting attorney general that I would not certify [the program's] legality") Comey was immediately appointed Acting Attorney General upon Ashcroft's hospitalization.
But while it appears clear that Comey communicated the decision to the White House on Friday March 5, it apparently was not until Tuesday March 9 that Comey put his foor down. ("And over the next week -- particularly the following week, on Tuesday -- we communicated to the relevant parties at the White House and elsewhere our decision that as acting attorney general I would not certify the program as to its legality...")
In other words, the White House did not take Comey seriously -- and expected to be able to pressure him to sign the authorization -- until the night before the hospital visit. The next day was probably spent in the White House seeing if there was anyway to do an "end run" around the certification procedure, and when that didn't pan out, the desperation move of the hospital visit was undertaken. The next day Bush authorizes the program without the certification -- and then on the 12th talks to Comey and Mueller and tells them to make the program compliant with the views of the DoJ.
I think we can conclude a couple of things...
1) Comey had been told that the White House would do whatever was necessary to keep the program running despite Comey's refusal to certify it. There is nothing in Comey's testimony which suggests that Mrs. Ashcroft communicated specifically WHY Card and Gonzales would be going to the hospital, and why Comey would react with such alacrity when told about the visit.
2) the "end run" effort included contacting whoever at the NSA who'd had the original doubts about the legality of the program, and they had refused to go along with it without DoJ certification.
3) Even AFTER Bush had certified the program on his own, the people at the NSA refused to continue the program without DoJ certification -- which is what made it necessary for Bush to meet with Comey and Mueller and agree to changes in the program
Steve5117 wrote on May 17, 2007 1:44 PM:Austin more than just a great story, it is a wonderful plot outline for future novels, stage shows and the actions of the government under Bush and the Gop will be the topic of many classroom discusions.
In all the speculation about the illegal gathering of information I wonder if there were any issues about outside contractors being employed to analyze the data and make reccomendations?
Anybody else on Comcast having service interup?
Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 1:45 PM:I went off line until I called and complained.
I love timelines. Love 'em, love 'em, love 'em. TPM Muckrakers and readers are great too. Sites like this reminds me that there is a lot of good in America and we will beat back the darkness of the Bush era.
code word-school, as in "it's time to school these neocon asses in the rule of law."
Frankly, my dear, ... wrote on May 17, 2007 1:56 PM:mbbsdphil: Relying on Specter to follow up would be foolish.
Agreed, but fortunately we don't have to. Leahy is now the Committee Chairman rather than Specter. Elections have consequences.
foggylady wrote on May 17, 2007 1:56 PM:Speaking of Ashcroft's "ethics", do bear in mind that
Diane wrote on May 17, 2007 2:04 PM:in addition to teaching at Regent, he is a lobbyist/consultant helping companies get lucrative contracts, particularly with DOJ and Homeland Security, AND his firm has "equity stakes"
(stocks) in some of the companies.
anybody see a conflict of interest there?
Think of the advantage they had in the Presidential election.
Long Memory wrote on May 17, 2007 2:12 PM:I wonder if that is what this is all about?
Spying on Kerry and Edwards campaign and the different states especially the close races.
This smells to high heaven of Rove.
Find out about this, Specter says. I should say. Can't, when they find out the details about this, the Senate press charges and at the very least get every lawyer who was ever in the room with this putrid disbarred?
The facts have to come out. As it is, one might be led to believe that they wiped their collective asses with The Constitution.
My personal hunch is that Karl Rove (he's not a lawyer, of course; he couldn't hack it even to getting an undergraduate degree) and his pals figured out a way to spy on political rivals "in the name of national security."
There have to be charges for that when it comes out. And it WILL come out.
Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 2:15 PM:The White House needed Comey's/DOJ's approval because it was going to be a misuse of the FBI.
DOJ is the parent agency for the FBI. The AG oversees the FBI.
FBI agents provide the security detail for the AG.
Comey called Muller to reinforce to his security detail that Comey was not to be removed because he feared that Card or Gonzales (or whomever else showed up from the WH) would order the FBI detail agents to leave -- saying effectively that we're proxies for the President and more powerful than Comey.
Now what led Comey to believe this is another question. Had they done it before? Was he paranoid?
Jason wrote on May 17, 2007 2:25 PM:Regarding Comey "Because your standing up to them is very important..." said Spector.
Then there's at least one man left in Washington. GIVE THAT MAN COMEY SOME AUTHORITY!!
Mrs Panstreppon wrote on May 17, 2007 2:26 PM:What does FBI Director Robert Mueller have to say about all of this? He has been onboard since the fall of 2001.
Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 2:34 PM:Isn't the "first confrontation" on May 17, 2002? Ashcroft was on the wrong side at that time.
Secret Court Rebuffs Ashcroft
Dan Eggen and Susan Schmidt, Washington Post,
August 23, 2002
Excerpt:
The secretive federal court that approves spying on terror suspects in the United States has refused to give the Justice Department broad new powers, saying the government had misused the law and misled the court dozens of times, according to an extraordinary legal ruling released yesterday.
A May 17 opinion by the court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) alleges that Justice Department and FBI officials supplied erroneous information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps, including one signed by then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh.
Authorities also improperly shared intelligence information with agents and prosecutors handling criminal cases in New York on at least four occasions, the judges said.
The department discovered the misrepresentations and reported them to the FISA court beginning in 2000.
MaryCh wrote on May 17, 2007 2:39 PM:As of Sunday, the ink will have been dry on Rove's pardon for 6 years and 4 months.
dm wrote on May 17, 2007 2:39 PM:We should remember that Comey was unwilling to label the program either legal or illegal. In some ways this is worse than a conclusion that the program was illegal.
Comey suggested that the program was not violating any statute (possibly relying on the reasoning that the AUMF in some way eliminated the requirement for the executive to observe FISA protections) but was also not adequately supported by any statute or any inherent or textual constitutional executive power (probably meaning that the "war power" was not expansive enough to justify the activity). Consequently, while the President may not have been acting illegally (debatable), he was knowingly acting extra-constitutionally, a violation of his oath of office.
The structure of our government depends on the fact that the power of each branch is bounded and described by the affirmative grants of power within the constitution. It is very disturbing that the President elected to assume and exercise additional powers despite the fact that his own Justice Department concluded that those powers were beyond any reasonable interpretation of the constitutional and statutory grant.
Violation of statute can be described as a disagreement between the branches. Willful assumption of exta-constitutional power may only be described as a prelude to tyranny.
feckless wrote on May 17, 2007 2:41 PM:So the gloves are off. Spy on whoever you want, you don't have to explain it to anyone.
So who does Cheney spy on?
Its very remote but maybe very powerful people, like media owners and editors as well as the political opposition maybe in league with terrorists. Which seems far fetched until you remember that some of these guys did the actual negotiating with the Iranians for Reagan's October surprise.
So for 2 years they get unrestricted dirt on anybody Cheney dislikes (eg everyone) and some Fox news guys just for balance.
Surprisingly since then there has been no real political or media opposition to the insanity of this "administration".
I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory, but Ashcroft, the mayor of the town in Footloose, was ready to Resign, this guy was deeply loyal, so the inital spying must have been the worst imaginable, J Edgar Hoover's lacy panties kind of stuff.
regular lurker wrote on May 17, 2007 2:42 PM:Sorry Nell...I posted too quickly. Yes, you are correct that the program was around for two years already and I jumped the gun writing.
Jane wrote on May 17, 2007 3:01 PM:If Gonzales and his henchman had succeeded in meeting with Ashcroft alone and had forged his signature, there would have been no way for any one to challenge it. Any failure by Ashcroft to 'remember' would have been laid to his condition which was 'obvioulsy' worse than Gonzales and company had realized.
Bush who is apparently the one who authorized the invasion of Ashcroft's hospital room should be asked to testify as to what Gonzales told him about why Ashcroft should be approached rather than Comey who was the acting AG.
Jane wrote on May 17, 2007 3:01 PM:If Gonzales and his henchman had succeeded in meeting with Ashcroft alone and had forged his signature, there would have been no way for any one to challenge it. Any failure by Ashcroft to 'remember' would have been laid to his condition which was 'obvioulsy' worse than Gonzales and company had realized.
Bush who is apparently the one who authorized the invasion of Ashcroft's hospital room should be asked to testify as to what Gonzales told him about why Ashcroft should be approached rather than Comey who was the acting AG.
Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 3:04 PM:Pure speculation here. Maybe it was obvious that this program was designed to monitor communication between political opponents.
It was 2004 when this came to a head.
Am I being unreasonably paranoid here?
paul lukasiak wrote on May 17, 2007 3:08 PM:"We should remember that Comey was unwilling to label the program either legal or illegal. In some ways this is worse than a conclusion that the program was illegal.
Comey suggested that the program was not violating any statute...."
I think you misunderstood what Comey had said.
He made it clear that he thought the program was illegal when he said he agreed that there was no legal basis for the action -- while deferring to the President's constitutional role as chief administrative officer of the Executive Branch.
That is what the threatened resignation was all about --- the President was certifying as legal something that was clearly illegal. Under those circumstances, everyone who thought it was illegal could only resign, because they could not prosecute the illegal actions once the Chief Executive Officer certifies them as legal.
neil wilson wrote on May 17, 2007 3:14 PM:Wow!!!
Who is the guy who wrote the email that is quoted in the article?
Give that 'TPM Reader' a GOLD STAR
I think that is the best thing I have ever read on the internet.
NYFM wrote on May 17, 2007 3:18 PM:Some things are obvious, and I can safely conclude the following, if anyone has any questions on what they were doing, and why things came to a head in march of '04:
1. They must have been trying to completely evade/override FISA compliance/oversight.
2. The fact that freaking Andy Card and the WH counsel were the ones trying to wrench this approval out of Ashcroft's nearly dead hands, leads one to conclude that the intent behind this nearly limitless wiretapping was POLITICAL in nature and so motivated, and not for national security interests.
3. The fact that George Tenet himself was not called in to convince the AG of the need for his approval supports this fact of politicization.
4. Both the timing of this crisis and the urgency of it all supports speculation that their true intent was to spy on the Kerry campaign.
5. Note the context: Bush's deluded insistence, (and BTW the unofficial theme of the Bush/Cheney re-elction campaign): that Osama bin Laden wanted to unseat Bush and get Kerry elected. Bush/Rove could in fact use this line of thinking in order to convince of the need to spy on Kerry, and that spying on Kerry was integral to the war on terror.
Jillian wrote on May 17, 2007 3:32 PM:In early March 2004 the greater story was that the Abu Ghraib torture business was leaking out, the prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Bagram were being exposed for what they were. And Kerry was the Democratic nominee. It wasn't much in the papers, but Gale Norton was clearly holding up any correction of the mineral royalties scandal at the BIA and other royalties problems.
There were all kinds of eavesdropping, secrecy, and legality problems everywhere with everything. Secrecy meaning the covering up of crimes the various pieces of the Administration were committing, of course.
Englischlehrer wrote on May 17, 2007 3:34 PM:damn, i'm just proud to be part of this thread. I swear to god it's some of you guys who are going to be part of the revolution. you've got me calling senators and representatives, something I had never done before. I live in Germany and am keeping up on all this stuff going on back home only via the internet, keep up the good fight, some of you guys are going to bring down the government legally, taking it back for the people. thanks and i'll keep making calls...
Anonymous wrote on May 17, 2007 3:40 PM:Inteeresting points, but there is a certain issue here that the testimony outlines, the NID has asked that the Phone Companies be held immune from charges that they illegally wiretapped citizens, the NID wants that 'pardon' to the phone companies. But as the testimony explicitly points out, the programme was not legal.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18046106/
excerpt:
Give telecommunications companies immunity from civil liability for their cooperation with Bush’s terrorist surveillance program. Pending lawsuits against companies including Verizon and AT&T allege they violated privacy laws by giving phone records to the NSA for the program.
While I want to see the NSA have adequate tools and be technology nuetral, I nonetheless don't want to see Congress give a blanket amnesty in the people's of the United States names when we know that an illegal activity was directed against them.
Code Word: "ETHICS"
dm wrote on May 17, 2007 3:40 PM:Paul,
Comey said: "Our legal analysis was that we couldn't find an adequate legal basis for aspects of this matter. And for that reason, I couldn't certify it to its legality."
Why do you assume that this means a violation of a statute (which is how I interpret the word "illegal")? It seems to me that lack of "an adequate legal basis" doesn't necessarily, or even probably, mean that the activity violated a statute. It seems more likely to me that this means that there was no statutory limitation but also no clear grant of authority to perform the action. Comey wasn't very specific about his legal thinking, but don't you think he would have been more explicit if he meant "illegal" rather than just "overreaching"?
Sharon A wrote on May 17, 2007 3:54 PM:We need a TRUTH COMMISSION
where all whistleblowers can tell their stories with full immunity against being prosecuted by this phony department of justice.
ww wrote on May 17, 2007 4:00 PM:From a Dec. 19, 2005 press conference
Reporter's question: I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a president during a war, at wartime? And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we're going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?
President Bush: "First of all, I disagree with your assertion of "unchecked power." ... There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters. There is oversight. We're talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest there's unchecked power is not listening to what I'm telling you. I'm telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times."
"This is an awesome responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the American people, and I understand that, Peter. And we'll continue to work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, to constantly monitor programs such as the one I described to you, to make sure that we're protecting the civil liberties of the United States. To say "unchecked power" basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject."
It appears obvious there is more than one program involved.
Mary wrote on May 17, 2007 4:05 PM:dm -
What Comey said was pretty clear IMO. Violations of the Constitution, including the 4th Amendment, are illegal, as are violations of FISA.
In very limited circumstances, there are somewhat defensible arguments that wiretaps might not require a FISA warrant. However, in many circumstances it is just not even a close call.
Comey said they did a fact, as well as legal, review and determined there was no legal basis for some of "the program" The Constitution's warrant requirements and the FISA requirements are the defaults if you do not have a legal basis to get around them. Comey said that DOJ/OLC couldn't find such a basis.
He did say that the only argument tendered for portions of the program to proceed was the "if the president does it, it's legal" argument. He says he doesn't buy that argument and I'd say his position on that is in keeping with almost all practical, theoretic, pragmatic and scholarly approaches to the powers of the President - imperialist neocons politicos excepted.
So Comey geared up to do what lawyers sometimes have to do when their clients are contemplating or engaging in the egregious - he was about to do a "noisy withdrawal." You already had a FISA Court where the successive Chief Judges thought the program was illegal and were now itching to pursue perjury charges against the next AG who signed off without implementing their firewalls.
Of course Ashcroft was with him - who would want to have the distinction of being that "next AG?"
BA wrote on May 17, 2007 4:27 PM:Why is TPM, TPM reader saying the surveillance program was made legal. With a few tweaks?
We don't know that. What we know is warrantless surveillance of US citizens is still taking place, right? That's illegal, right??
billp wrote on May 17, 2007 4:28 PM:Austin Cooper
Date: May 17, 2007 12:18 PM
Indeed
Steve wrote on May 17, 2007 4:32 PM:hmmm and how can we initialize the impeachment ? maybe attorney general Gonzales will take action....... oh .. wait.
dm wrote on May 17, 2007 4:53 PM:Mary,
You have completely dismantled my suggestion. I concede.
JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 5:33 PM:"For a full appreciation of John Yoo's thinking (and distortions of history), I recommend reading "The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11." It is a remarkable document that essentially argues for presidential powers and prerogatives equal to those of George III.
"Posted by: SF fan
Date: May 17, 2007 12:08 PM"
Ah, but give Yoo some credit: he gives an excellent lecture to the unenlightened all about military realities and strategies -- an expertise he gathered from never having worn a uniform.
One of the problems with law professors is not so much that they are able to rhetorically justify the most patently nonsensical of legal "theories," but that given power, they might tend to actually believe their rhetoric to the degree that they actuallly endeavor to implement it.
Add in the extremist right-wing tendency to brag of expertise they do not have. Yoo should be among those "renditioned" to the Hague for _fair_ trial for rationalizing, justifying, and helping implement the commission of war crimes.
georgia wrote on May 17, 2007 5:36 PM:The day Goldsmith resigned there was this article:
New Records Show That FBI Invoked Controversial Surveillance Powers Weeks After Attorney General Declared that Power Had Never Been Used (6/17/2004)
FBI Forced to Turn Over Documents Under Court Order
NEW YORK - Federal Bureau of Investigation documents turned over to the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil liberties organizations under court order reveal that the FBI invoked a controversial provision of the Patriot Act only weeks after Attorney General John Ashcroft publicly declared that this power had never been used.
Among the records released is an FBI memorandum, dated October 15, 2003, indicating that the FBI submitted an application for an order under Section 215 of the Patriot Act less than a month after the Attorney General made his announcement. The records disclosed to the ACLU do not indicate how many times the FBI has invoked Section 215 since October 2003.
- http://www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot/18460prs20040617.html
JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 5:38 PM:"Does it matter what went on before 2004 or even in the 2 weeks until bush okay'd it?
"In the latest re-authorization, didn't the bushies all get immunity for any law they and the cia may have broken in the past?
"Posted by: Xman
Date: May 17, 2007 01:23 PM"
Yes, it does matter: the Constitution prohibits _ex post facto_ laws -- laws which make legal past crimes as if they were legal at the time committed; or prohibit past legal actions as if they were illegal at the time "committed".
Torture is a war crime, and remians a war crime, despite the prior Cogress' effort to give it the appearance of legality; and Bushit's "signing statement" on the matter notwithstanding.
SC = hope. As in, hope.
heh wrote on May 17, 2007 5:39 PM:one small comment out of this, all the spying going on including my phone: I could hear a click (and I'm not kidding).
Given the massive data mined by these bumbling neocons, could they put it to some use considering their ineptness? I've heard little about this. All the mistakes made by this administration now coming to light, points to their incompetence.
The program was wrong and illegal but considering their obvious disabilities, their arrogance, the success of such a program could only proceed with an army of like minded dunderheads.
I mean really,to their credit there are some Republicans with integrity like Comey and Pat Fitzgerald. Thank goodness for them.
mbbsdphil wrote on May 17, 2007 5:43 PM:Mary reminds us of an essential aspect to some of the resignations among top lawyers at the DOJ. Comey and Goldsmith, for example, unlike say, Sampson and Goodling, didn't leave because their careers were capped or because they couldn't get around Addington, et al. IMO, they left because they had to, if they wanted to remain lawyers.
If a lawyer concludes that his or her client is committing illegal acts, s/he has to try to persuade them to stop. If the client doesn't, the lawyer can't just squeal and point fingers and still keep their license to practice law. That would be breaching client confidentiality, like a priest telling your spouse or boss about all those things you mentioned in confessional. (For Hollywood's version, see Tom Cruise in The Firm.)
The lawyer must stop representing that client, if possible without causing the client harm. If the lawyer doesn't do that, s/he could be furthering a felony. That applies whether the client is an aggrieved spouse, a corrupt CEO or the President.
It's not just being self-serving, or merely complying with a lawyer's responsibility as an officer of the court. A lot of lawyers think that committing illegal acts that harm people is a bad idea and don't want to be part of it.
But it's hard to do and often financially difficult. Which is why I think Rove's HR talent focused on the over-ambitious Sampsons and Schlozmans, and most of all, the Goodlings. Too zealous, too inexperienced, too trusting of leadership, and too casual and cynical about who the "bad guys" really are. They chose well - for their purposes.
JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 5:50 PM:"Comey called Muller to reinforce to his security detail that Comey was not to be removed because he feared that Card or Gonzales (or whomever else showed up from the WH) would order the FBI detail agents to leave -- saying effectively that we're proxies for the President and more powerful than Comey."
The exact reverse: Mueller called Comey's security detail and told _them_ not to allow Gonzales/Card to remove Comey from Ashcroft's room. Doubtless he feared the effort to coerce Ashcroft might succeed were Comey not there to intercede.
"Now what led Comey to believe this is another question. Had they done it before? Was he paranoid?"
What led _Mueller_ to fear it.
Posted by:
Date: May 17, 2007 02:15 PM
SC = part. As in, what part did FBI Director Mueller have in the threat to resign if the "program" was not in the FBI?
JNagarya wrote on May 17, 2007 6:08 PM:"Comey said: "Our legal analysis was that we couldn't find an adequate legal basis for aspects of this matter. And for that reason, I couldn't certify it to its legality."
Why do you assume that this means a violation of a statute (which is how I interpret the word "illegal")? It seems to me that lack of "an adequate legal basis" doesn't necessarily, or even probably, mean that the activity violated a statute. It seems more likely to me that this means that there was no statutory limitation but also no clear grant of authority to perform the action. Comey wasn't very specific about his legal thinking, but don't you think he would have been more explicit if he meant "illegal" rather than just "overreaching"?"
It more likely means the activity exceeded the scope of whatever the applicable statute. Or, the way I heard Comey, there was no legal basis for it, in either statute (constitutions are implemented by means of statutes) or Constitution. That means the only way to fix it -- there being no legal basis for it in any law -- was to reduce its scope to within existing legal limits.
"Posted by: dm
Date: May 17, 2007 03:40 PM"
SC = cloth. As in, Bush, et al. make up the law out of whole cloth.
hwc wrote on May 17, 2007 6:14 PM:However, I still wonder why the Director of the FBI, Mueller, was so central in all of this. Was it simply because the FBI is the investigative arm of the USA Office? Did the FBI do some of the investigation into what was going on?
I can answer that. It's all covered in Ron Suskind's book, The One Percent Solution.
Understand that the best work done against terrorist networks after 9-11 was "connecting the dots" and understanding the connections, both in terms of financial transactions and communications, in the global terror network. It started the day after 9-11 when the president of the largest credit card processing center in the United States contacted the FBI and offered his company's assistance.
Everytime a terror suspect popped up (starting with the 9-11 crew), they ran all the credit card transactions. Like spokes from a wheel, these transactions placed people and funds at points around the world and highlighted other people. It didn't hurt that the credit card processing company also owned Western Union, so they were able to capture wire transfers, especially in the Middle East. As new suspects were identified, more and more connections were made, until eventually the FBI was able to piece together a financing network.
Simultaneously, the CIA/NSA was getting access to the major telephone switching centers. Again, the goal wasn't random, but rather to figure out who each suspect was placing calls to. As more suspects were added to the web, relationships started to emerge -- for example six different terror suspects calling the same numbers in Pakistan (or Germany or wherever). It wasn't so much listening to the conversations as trying to figure out who was calling who.
Between the telephone routing information and the financial transactions, they were able to put a serious dent in Al Qaeda's network. Especially after the CIA took over operation of one of the major Western Union wire transfer storefronts in the Middle East.
The goal wasn't to make cases against the terrorists. The goal was to let (most of) them continue making transactions and light up more points of contact on the emerging web of connections.
Apparently, this process was EXTREMELY valuable. However, as they started rounding up these guys, the networks eventually went dead. After enough of them popped up and got whacked, they figured out that phone calls and credit card transactions weren't a good idea. But, in the interim, it was important to keep these programs secret.
I have very mixed feelings. These programs were worth there weight in gold in disrupting Al Qaeda -- especially the financial mechanisms. They rounded up a ton of Al Qaeda operatives and financiers and learned of the locations of all the cells worldwide. On the other hand, this stuff wasn't really constitutional. They were doing their best to cover themselves with warrants, but the nature of what they were looking for didn't fit with a conventional criminal case search warrant. It wasn't like they were necessarily trying to indict "Joe Mohammed", they were trying to find out the people Joe was calling, and the hundred people those "friends of Joe" were calling.
Anyway, that's why the FBI was involved. They were in charge of deciphering the financial networks.
Michele wrote on May 17, 2007 6:48 PM:Airmon,
Thanks for the "3 card Monte" metaphor. It sums up perfectly what I was trying to get at in my post. Something's up here with the way Gonzales carefully parsed his words when testifying. It really sounds like the now "legal" wiretapping program may be the cover for some really heinous secret program we know nothing about (as yet). Obviously, John Yoo felt that nothing was outside the purview of executive privilege and the small cadre of people (Goldsmith, Comey and--OMG I can't believe I'm saying this--Ashcroft) at the DOJ who were willing to stand up to the administration are now gone. That doesn't bode well at all...
lestatdelc wrote on May 17, 2007 7:03 PM:Mary, so to sum up what you are saying is, that the FBI was so worried that they were acting on illegally obtained "evidence" before the courts (presumably from the NSA program which was not legal) that the head of the FBI was willing to resign over it?
That may be logically sound, but the larger political inter-agency aspect of it makes me suspect that the domestic spying aspect of the NSA program(?) was/is far more damning than we imagine (limited-scope phone communications on overseas calls where the lines route through US territory)
I dunno, it just seems that the smoke is far darker and bigger than the fire that is oft speculated at and down-graded by the Administration as not as large in scope as literally listening in on purely domestic calls without FISA oversight.
Sully18 wrote on May 17, 2007 7:25 PM:"...But there’s certainly evidence to suggest that the underlying issue was was whether constitutional or statutory protections of civil liberties ought to be binding on the president in a time of war."
How is it that we have allowed ourselves to be intimidated into a state of war when 9/11 was clearly a criminal act by a non-country,politically criminal organization called Al Queada?The answer is clear;so that the president could amass more power with which to declare the illegal war in Iraq.
Steve Elliott wrote on May 17, 2007 8:04 PM:After becoming aware of all the shenanigans regarding Uncle Karl so far, and the DOJ, I can`t help but picture this man rubbing his hands and remarking, " I would like to add a program to this eavesdropping opportunity, while were at it". Knock yourself Karl!
Yossarian wrote on May 17, 2007 8:24 PM:Please watch this show if you haven't already done so.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/
The Oracle wrote on May 17, 2007 8:39 PM:If I recollect correctly, one of the FISA court judges, a Republican appointee, resigned in protest several years ago because he, as well as most of the other Republican-appointed FISA court judges, had been left out of the "loop" regarding this highly illegal, un-American warrantless wiretapping program (or programs).
He definitely would be on any short list of people Congress should ask to testify, whether in open or closed session, to explain why he resigned and over what.
Steve Elliott wrote on May 17, 2007 8:48 PM:Yeah. One can`t help but notice in the Frontline doc,. that there is more than one program involved in the eavesdropping. Senator Fienstein was after Gonzo about it, but then dropped the ball. Why?
Jack wrote on May 17, 2007 8:53 PM:Someone like John Ashcroft would have no reservations about approving a program that wiretaps terrorists. His reluctance to endorse the program indicates it was probably a big fishing expedition in violation of the 4th Amendment. Bush's former NSA Director and current CIA Director General Hayden doesn't know much about that particular amendment as you can see at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGhcECnWRGM
If torture is perfectly acceptable in the minds of the Loyal Bushies, then I'm sure they have no problem with illegal wiretapping. They'd all better start saving up for their legal defense fund, just in case the next Attorney General decides to take his oath of office seriously. Imperial Neocons and al Qaida have much in common when it comes to respect for the US Constitution and the rule of American law.
Roberta wrote on May 17, 2007 9:16 PM:Re.: Berenson's Apparent Mounting Legal Problems
I was intrigued by the very long comments about Bradley Berenson, the AT&T case in SF, and the similarity in illegality between AT&T and the Comey revelations re. the surveillance program.
I'll admit I didn't know anything up to date about the AT&T issue and nothing about Berenson, so I did a little search using "Berenson, Sidley, Austin." Wow. I agree with the voluble poster that Berenson would be a fertile source for the Senate's investigation.
I hadn't realized that Berenson was under Gonzalez when he was WH counsel, that Berenson testified before Congress about whether or not Congress had the power to stop the Iraq war (no, in his opinion), that in his defense of Kyle Sampson he's now undermining Gonzalez (an underlying Bush group strategy to hang Gonzalez out to dry?), and that his current law firm--Sidley Austin--has other close ties to the Bush Admin.
Daniel Troy, another partner in Sidley Austin, is a former FDA counsel from the Bush Admin. that now defends the interests of pharmaceutical companies. Cases he's connected to include one about doctors receiving remuneration from pharmas in exchange for prescribing their products and off-label drug use.
And there's a current tax evasion case against KPMG and former Sidley Austin partner Raymond Ruble. KPMG is the independent auditor for numerous companies, notably including KBR and Halliburton.
I do not like to indulge myself in conspiracy theorism, but, man, Sidley Austin seems simply to be a private-sector arm of the octopus that is the Bush Administration.
Kudos to posters who see the Congress laying a foundation for solid action against Bush and Co. and for explaining this foundation so well. Thanks to you all.
mbbsdphil wrote on May 17, 2007 9:24 PM:We know next to nothing about these domestic surveillance programs, but we can make some good guesses. Almost certainly, they involve tapping entire data streams, not targeted communications of named individuals about whom there exists probable cause for a search. If the latter, there would be no scandals, no hurried showdowns at Don Corleone's hospital bed hoping for the Don's benediction.
Spying raises the hackles mostly of those spied upon. So, odds are good that these programs have little to do with foreign activity that might be criminal. They involve domestic spying, probably on a large scale, with no limits on retention, use or tracking of the data. Google Gone Wild, which would create Orwell's Big Brother here and now.
As an analogy, torture is widely believed to reveal little, if any, reliable information. This administration fixates on "the power to torture" as a surrogate for alcohol to pump up the President's false courage. Widescale domestic spying, like torture, probably reveals little about actionable criminal conduct (except that of the President and all his men). I suspect it reveals invaluable clues about the govt's friends and enemies, and who might be turned from one to the other.
Yossarian wrote on May 17, 2007 9:28 PM:And in that same frontline piece watch how John Yoo just says that CIC (Commander-in-Chief) has all the authority to spy on people. Wow! This is coming from a lawyer who we would hope would know better. And seems that he is now an academic at no less but boalt. Another wow! How in the world does boalt get away with hiring an extremist?
me wrote on May 17, 2007 9:31 PM:We need a TRUTH COMMISSION
where all whistleblowers can tell their stories with full immunity against being prosecuted by this phony department of justice.
Posted by: Sharon A
Date: May 17, 2007 03:54 PM
agreed... because the Office of Special Counsel, under Scott Bloch, is neglecting their duty to protect whistleblowers' rights.
Yossarian wrote on May 17, 2007 9:54 PM:Stephen Colbert has it right. Impeach this prez dems or you ain't nothin' but "pussies."
http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/22/colbert%2Ddares%2Ddemocrats%2Dto%2Dimpeach%2Dbush
Balls needed by the dems?
Yossarian wrote on May 17, 2007 9:59 PM:Wow!!!
Attorneys for Cheney and the other officials said any conversations they had about Plame with each other and reporters were part of their normal job duties because they were discussing foreign policy and engaging in an appropriate "policy dispute." Cheney's attorney went farther, arguing that Cheney is legally akin to the president because of his unique government role, and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit.
ann dover wrote on May 17, 2007 10:57 PM:Ever since I heard of Christiane Amanpour being wiretapped I have had a strong suspicion that the pigs in this admin. were wiretapping their political opponents. It would be way too easy to okay a wiretap on Amanpour and therefore her husband and therefore his client who just happened to be the Kerry campaign.
security code word - free - sure as heck ain't for freedom of speech, freedom of privacy.
Steve Elliott wrote on May 18, 2007 12:14 AM:I hope I don`t seem too naive. I take it as a given that DOJ gives the green light for any eavesdropping in regards to legality. But were is the oversight? Also who are the designated operatives of any such program or programs? is it CIA, FBI, WH Black OPS or a mixed bag? Is there no Congressional or Senate watchdog? Who monitors these people and I do mean on a 24/7 basis?
eyeball wrote on May 18, 2007 1:11 AM:couple of thoughts here to chew over:
- assuming bush, card, gonzo and the rest knew that night that comey was the AG (acting) while Ash was in drool mode, why would they even seek Ash's hospital-bed signature, which wud be no better than mine or yours given the fact that his duties had been legally turned over to the Dep. (comey)? the only answer i can think of is that the paranoid bush claque must have concluded comey was lying about how ashcroft now felt about the spying program. so the bushies must have thought comey had instigated some sort of coup d'etat at justice. or at least that was their cover story. none of this excuses anything, but it does underscore the sickness and power lust afflcting this depraved junta.
- wudn't the job of the president's counsel (Alberto) in a moment like this be to say something like: "Er, Mr. P., i dont think its such a great idea to go get ashcroft's shaky near-death signature cos, um, he's actually not the A.G. at this moment, so that would not make this legally binding." ... ? instead, Berto volunteers to run over to the hospital with the paper and get the signature himself !! i honestly do not think there are many Mob lawyers who would risk their licenses this way. i sear the man is an astounding parasite. if bush told him to deliver a dufel bag filled with unmarked nonsequential $100 bills to monica goodling's house at 2 am sunday i swear he'd agree.
Agent86 wrote on May 18, 2007 1:24 AM:To: mbbsdphil
At: May 17, 2007 09:24 PM
Excellent post! But the odds are these programs DO have lots to do with foreign activity that might be criminal, as well as economic and a lot of other things.
The problem here is one of governance and the lack thereof. First, Whoever runs the program gets to have sole ownership of extremely sensitive data, including all corporate and personal data, all financial, medical, banking, all purchasing and selling data, all bids, all contract terms, all communications to, from and within the United States. Second, There is no governance on this to speak of.
Like, hey! We got a system.
Look at who benefits. Let's just do a hypothetical: The NYT just reported that Rudy Giuliani’s sudden $30 million fortune is "the most unexpected information to emerge from the disclosure forms so far," from the presidential contenders. $11 million of this allegedly comes from making 124 speeches, in 2006 ONLY, so saith the NYT.
Okay, this is the bright guy whose chosen star performer is Bernie Kerik and who sent in hundreds of police and firemen into two severely compromised buildings that anyone, even with no engineering training, will know are going to collapse at any minute. But the communications didn't work because he, small-government Giuliani, didn't buy them, and he built the emergency center to handle this kind of disaster right in the middle of NYC's best-known terrorist target, the site of that disaster.
So, even though he appoints sleaze to be sleazy and kills people with the grossest imaginable negligence and builds emergency centers in the very worst places possible, he is actually running for President. I mean, golly!
But Giuliani sure knows how to make money! From his reported "controlled" assets, during his divorce proceedings, in June, 2001, of only $7,000, he's now a multi-millionaire. (From the same NYT article.)
Well, with a cornered data center, with no governance whatsoever, Giuliani can get to be a billionaire so much faster!
Once you have that data, you can start controlling in a very big way. As I wrote, in part, elsewhere in TPM, once the owners of this data get the power to associate it, there is no move that anyone can make (and no purchase, no sale, no association and assembly) without the knowledge and illicit actions of the parties in control of this program. Blackmail is just one illicit action. Coercion and extortion. Insider trading. Scooping competitors' plans. It goes on and on. A long list.
This isn't just about diddling opponents and catching terrorists. This is about Total Information Awareness and *unitary* control. Of everything. All ungoverned surveillance programs open the door to just that.
I can imagine, sick as he was, Ashcroft would rather perish than sign onto such an abomination.
We need to hear from Ashcroft. Now.
Klik on my name for URL to NYTimes article on Giuliani:
hantran wrote on May 18, 2007 2:29 AM:Isn't this abouthte time that leaks were coming out about the government working with the phone companies to put splitters into mian internet connections at central phone company locations?
Anonymous wrote on May 18, 2007 2:46 AM:Yossarian,
You seem surprised that Cheney employed the Otter defense.
Jan wrote on May 18, 2007 6:13 AM:Excellent journalism. Thank you.
JT wrote on May 18, 2007 10:37 AM:code word = snake
need i say more?
wake me when we get to the the part where we see Ch3ney and R0ve drooling over the email and wiretaps of the DNC and Kerry campaign folks.
Spotted Owl wrote on May 18, 2007 3:14 PM:Boalt Hall Law School has always enjoyed a sterling reputation, which has now been badly tarnished by a toady, obsequious professor-turned-spy, Mr. Yoo.
Yoo's spying would not be so objectionable, if he were spying on the enemies of our country.
The fact that he was spying on the American citizens, unlawfully, is what makes his position untenable.
I certainly hope the faculty at Boalt Hall censors him roundly, and indeed, shuns him.
Spotted Owl wrote on May 18, 2007 3:16 PM:Boalt Hall Law School has always enjoyed a sterling reputation, which has now been badly tarnished by a toady, obsequious professor-turned-spy, Mr. Yoo.
Yoo's spying would not be so objectionable, if he were spying on the enemies of our country.
The fact that he was spying on the American citizens, unlawfully, is what makes his position untenable.
I certainly hope the faculty at Boalt Hall censors him roundly, and indeed, shuns him.
Whistler wrote on May 18, 2007 11:24 PM:Fourth highlighted paragraph, from the top, also says "interrogation practices". Alberto "Torture Guy" Gonzales, as we know, was all over that. And in the room at the hospital.
As far as timelines go: where does the outting of the war crimes that happened at Gitmo fit in? And, please recall, having war crimes come back and bite them all in the ass, worries them; or they would not have attempted to set up ways for them to avoid being charged with them, long before the public even knew any sordid details.
More and more, I'm getting disgusted with all of this. It all stinks ... so do something, Congress! Rope is cheap. Trees are plentiful.
"No impeachment; no incumbency". Spread the word.
piglestick wrote on May 19, 2007 9:08 AM:I have to wonder :
It is clear that a eavesdropping / wiretapping program was underway and one would surmise that it was also large - that is many peopple were targeted.
If the targets were terrorists where are the results - we have a few cases of homegrown terror plots i.e. the Fort Dix folks and the Florida folks. So we have a large eavesdropping program and relatively few arrests. One would think that our administration would be eager to rush any folks discovered by the eavesdrpping program to justice.
Were the targets actually terrorists or were the targets some other group ?
Virginia wrote on July 20, 2007 1:49 AM:Buck, to answer your ?? the answer is YES,it started in 1992.
SocraticGadfly wrote on July 27, 2007 11:04 AM:All of this puts the lie to hints to the idea that Gonzo is talking about a different program than today's TSP. At best light, it's a matter of semantics over a largely seamless program.