While House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) presides over negotiations on the new surveillance bill, House Republicans have continued to push the Senate's version, which contains retroactive immunity for the telecoms, every which way they can.

Earlier this week, they tried to convince moderate Dems that it really was in their best interest (sub. req.):

"This is an opportunity for the 21 Blue Dog Democrats who signed a letter supporting the bipartisan, Senate-passed FISA bill to prove that they are serious about America's national security," said Michael Steel, House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) spokesman. "Will they choose to protect their constituents or will they back the Democratic leadership in kowtowing to trial lawyers and liberal special interests?"

Meanwhile, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) (yes, that Jerry Lewis) will try to tack on the Senate's bill to the war supplemental spending bill. As The Politico notes, the Dems on the appropriations committee will likely vote that down, but "at the very least, he would put members of the majority on the record rejecting the Senate bill, something Republicans have done repeatedly."

So far the moderate Dems have held strong to the Dem leadership's position that retroactive immunity is off the table. Hoyer has said that he hopes that negotiations will result in a new bill by late May. Regardless, the next showdown is likely to take place before August, when the wiretaps authorized under the Protect America Act will actually begin to lapse. So we'll see what happens then.

The administration's campaign to gin up alarm over the lapse of the Protect America Act having failed , Republicans first signaled a willingness to sit down with Democrats earlier this month.

Of course, the administration still wants its retroactive immunity for the telecoms that participated in the warrantless wiretapping program and the House Dems still refuse to grant that. So it's unclear what sort of compromise might emerge. But the talks have begun. From The Politico:

Congressional staffers from both parties met with administration officials Monday to discuss controversial electronic surveillance legislation, an aide to House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.)confirmed, offering a ray of hope for the long-stalled bill....

Behind the scenes, Hoyer has emerged as a deal maker on the issue over the past several weeks, working as the go-between for liberal House Democrats unwilling to accept immunity and Senate Republicans who would block any bill that does not protect the telecoms from prosecution....

One House GOP aide said Hoyer is trying to get a proposal by the end of the week.

"He has August on his mind," said the GOP aide. "He knows it is the real do-or-die time for this."

Several of the authorizations governing ongoing surveillance programs are set to expire in August, which could force congressional action.

During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing this morning, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) questioned Attorney General Michael Mukasey about that October, 2001 Justice Department memo in which John Yoo found that the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against "unreasonable searches and seizures," had "no application to domestic military operations."

Has that memo been withdrawn? If not, was it still in force? Feinstein wanted to know.

She found it difficult to pry an answer loose. "I can't speak to the October, 2001 memo," Mukasey said when she asked whether it had been withdrawn. He said that Yoo's later March, 2003 memo -- which broadly authorized the use of torture by military interrogators on unlawful combatants -- had been withdrawn, but refused to discuss that October, 2001 memo.

Here's video of the exchange:

That memo remains classified, and Mukasey said that working to declassify portions of or entire secret Justice Department legal memos by Yoo and others was a "priority" of his, but he refused to supply a timeline for when he might make those determinations. He was very mindful of Congress' "legitimate oversight role," he said.

"This isn't a question of oversight," Feinstein said. "I'm just asking you, 'Is this memo in force that the Fourth Amendment does not apply?"

"The principle that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in wartime is not in force," Mukasey replied.

"That's not the principle I asked you about," Feinstein countered. The memo referred to domestic military operations, she said.

"There are no domestic military operations being carried out today," Mukasey replied.

"I'm asking you a question. That's not the answer."

"I'm unaware of any domestic military operations being carried out today," he repeated.

"You're not answering my question," she said.

Finally, Mukasey responded, "The Fourth Amendment applies across the board whether we're in wartime or peacetime. It applies across the board."

When Feinstein pronounced herself satisfied, Mukasey said, "with due respect, I don't think there's anything really new about that answer." He went on to imply that Yoo's discussion of the applicability of the Fourth Amendment had not been a crucial aspect of that memo. "The discussion of which that was a part... means the inaptness... the suggested inapplicability of the Fourth Amendment as an alternative basis for finding that searches discussed there would be reasonable."

"But Mr. Yoo's contention was that the Fourth Amendment did not apply and that the President was free to order domestic military operations," Feinstein replied.

"Without regard to the Fourth Amendment?"

"Yes."

"My understanding is that is not operative."

The Washington Post reported last week that the Justice Department "repudiated the idea that there are no constitutional limits to military searches and seizures in a time of war, saying it depends on 'the particular context and circumstances of the search.'"

More evidence that John Yoo was the most powerful deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's history. The Washington Post reports this morning that when Yoo issued his now-infamous March 14, 2003 memo to the Pentagon, neither Attorney General John Ashcroft, nor his deputy Larry Thompson "were aware."

As Marty Lederman has pointed out, the fact that the memo was issued under Yoo's own name is further indication that this was a back door authorization of interrogation practices.

The Post also sheds light on Yoo's earlier October 23, 2001 legal memo, the one that declared that the Fourth Amendment had "no application to domestic military operations." The memo "focused on the rules governing any deployment of U.S. forces inside the country 'in the event of further large-scale terrorist activities' by al-Qaeda" according to "a Justice Department official." Just what that sort of operation that might have been discussed or how long that memo remained in effect are unclear. In fact, it's unclear whether it might still be relied upon:

Although the memo has not been formally withdrawn, the Justice Department yesterday repudiated the idea that there are no constitutional limits to military searches and seizures in a time of war, saying it depends on "the particular context and circumstances of the search," according to a statement.

All that is clear is that Department officials are insistent that that memo had nothing to do with the warrantless wiretapping program. But as the AP has shown, that appears not to be entirely true.

It's gotten to be something of a pattern with administration figures of late: making sweeping claims about national security matters that do not stand up to scrutiny. Just Monday, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) complained that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell (who has something of a habit with this), had mischaracterized liberal opposition to retroactive immunity in the Senate as a bunch of impeachment-crazed loonies.

This time it's Attorney General Michael Mukasey who's catching flak. In a Q&A session after a speech last week, Mukasey said:

"[Officials] shouldn't need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."

The problem with this, as Glenn Greenwald at Salon has shown, is that nothing of this sort seems to have happened. Greenwald asked former executive director of the 9/11 Commission Philip Zelikow, who responded that he was "not sure of course what the AG had in mind" and came up empty guessing.

In a letter today, House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) calls Mukasey's statement very disturbing and writes, "I am aware of no previous reference, in the 9/11 Commission report or elsewhere, to a call from a known terrorist safe house in Afghanistan to the United States which, if it had been intercepted, could have helped prevent the 9/11 attacks." And anyway, he adds, there's no reason why the FISA law would not have served to intercept the call in this instance. So what's Mukasey talking about? he wants to know.

You can read the letter, which was also signed by fellow committee members Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Bobby Scott (D-VA), below. The lawmakers also ask, not for the first time, for a copy of the October 23, 2001 memo by John Yoo that declared the Fourth Amendment kaput (it had "no application to domestic military operations").

Read more »

Do we really understand the scope of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program?

We've already written a number of times about the new book by New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau. And on Tuesday, I interviewed Lichtblau, who began reporting on the administration's wireless wiretapping program back in 2004 and won the Pulitzer Prize along with James Risen for breaking the story in December of 2005.

Among other things, I got him to walk me through what we do and don't know about the program. How broad was the surveillance? What does the NSA's massive data mining project have to do with the warrantless wiretapping? And does Lichtblau suspect that his own phone has been tapped?

Lichtblau also responded to Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), who posted at TPMcafe on Monday of this week. Harman was in turn responding to a passage in Lichtblau's book, where he writes that when he approached Harman in 2005 about the administration's then-still-secret warrantless wiretapping program, she'd shushed him and told him that The New York Times did the right thing by not publishing the story in 2004. Beginning in February of 2003, Harman was a member of the so-called "gang of eight," the eight lawmakers, four Republicans and four Dems, who were briefed on the surveillance program.

Harman didn't dispute his account, but did take issue with his characterization that her position on the program underwent "a dramatic transformation" after the Times broke the story. She wrote in her post that she'd been completely in the dark that the program had involved wiretapping without warrants.

To which, Lichtblau responds below:

I think that assertion was consistent with what we’ve heard, that these briefings were very limited, very carefully crafted, that they were only told a certain amount about the program and given sort of a filtered view of it. I believe all that much is true.

I guess the next question is why the gang of eight were willing to settle for that....

I’m not saying the program shouldn’t have continued, but it’s one thing for four members of Congress to know what they were approving and to say, okay. It’s another thing to say we had no idea, then to allow this to continue for five years.

The full interview is below. TPM research hound John Amick provided the transcription.

Read more »

Yesterday the ACLU noticed another of John Yoo's contributions to legal thought, tucked in a footnote of the March, 2003 memo. That footnote indicated that in a October 23, 2001 memo, Yoo had advised that the Fourth Amendment was too much bother. Here's that footnote:

The October 23, 2001 memo remains classified. And as the AP and The Wall Street Journal report, it's unclear exactly what sort of activities the memo was used to support. A White House spokesman denied that it had anything to do with the warrantless wiretapping program, but as the AP points out, "the government itself related the October memo to the [Terrorist Surveillance Program] when it included it on a list of documents that were responsive to the ACLU's request for records from the program."

And how long did the administration rely on this finding? "It was in use at least until March 2003 but not after January 2006," reports the Journal.

At the very least, it's apparent what Yoo thought about "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States." There seems to have been no limits to that authority. As Justin points out over at ABC, another of Yoo's infamous memos, the August 2002 "Torture Memo" signed by then-Office of Legal Counsel chief Jay Bybee, gave another indication of this:

A footnote to the Bybee document said that the October 2001 memo also concluded that Posse Comitatus –- an 1878 statute barring the military from participating in "law and order" missions domestically, under most circumstances – does not apply to the war on terror.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) confirms this morning's Wall Street Journal story that the administration has changed its tune. From Roll Call (sub. req.):

The Bush administration is “now in a position where they want to talk about a possible compromise” on stalled electronic spying legislation, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters today.

“I think, frankly, they were surprised” that House Democratic leaders were able to pass their preferred version of the bill, which would reauthorize and update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, just before lawmakers left for the two-week spring recess, he said.

Hoyer said he has been in conversations with administration officials and with House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), all of whom have indicated that they are ready to reach a compromise.

As we've often noted here, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has frequently gotten into trouble for making statements that were either impolitic or, well, not true. And last week, in his zeal to demonstrate the unreasonableness of liberal critics, he made a statement that was both.

Speaking at Furman University, he said (pdf):

We had a bill go into the Senate. It was debated vigorously. There were some who said we shouldn't have an Intelligence Community. Some have that point of view. Some say the President of the United States violated the process, spied on Americans, should be impeached and should go to jail. I mean, this is democracy, you can say anything you want to say. That was the argument made. The vote was 68 to 29. It's a bill we can live with. It's the right bill.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is not happy. Sure, many senators -- particularly Feingold and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) -- objected to key aspects of the legislation, including the provision granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms. But the debate was nothing like McConnell describes. And Feingold writes in a letter to McConnell today that he ought to either back up his statement or "issue an immediate correction and an apology."

Feingold concludes:

While all sides of this debate deserve to be heard, to falsely attribute statements to United States Senators serves only to mislead the American people. It also undermines your credibility and that of the position of Director of National Intelligence.

We put a call in to McConnell's office to see what the response is. We'll let you know when we hear back.

You can see Feingold's letter here or read it below.

Update: As Spencer reported over at The Washington Independent last month, McConnell was similarly glib in criticizing those who disagree with him at a talk at Johns Hopkins.

Read more »

OK, things were said. Patriotism was impugned, fear was mongered, attack ads were run. But that doesn't mean we can't work something out, does it?

The administration is ready to talk turkey, reports The Wall Street Journal. But if the administration "has signaled to Democratic lawmakers it is open to negotiation" about the surveillance bill, it's not entirely clear just yet where the administration is willing to give.

The centerpiece of negotiations, of course, will be whether telecoms will receive retroactive immunity for their participation in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Though a number of Senate Dems crossed over to support that, the House has managed to hold firm, twice passing a bill without retroactive immunity. Some Dems are floating "a pared-back version of immunity," such as limiting immunity to certain aspects of the program or capping possible damages. Talks about other aspects of the legislation, for instance concerning judicial oversight of surveillance, might come more easily.

But the reason for the White House's new tack is pretty clear: they used every weapon at their disposal -- presidential statements and press conferences, alarming letters and public appearances by the director of national intelligence and attorney general, time pressures created by the lapsing of legislation or a Congressional recess -- and none of it worked. The House, after all that, still passed a bill a world away from what the administration was pushing for. It was, as the Journal points out, a strikingly different outcome from August, when the White House's squeeze play worked to perfection.

The difference? Well, a number of things. But one thing in particular is the fact that Dems no longer trust the administration's point man, DNI Mike McConnell. From today's Los Angeles Times:

On the eve of a House vote on controversial wiretapping legislation last month, the nation's intelligence director, J. Michael McConnell, convened a secret weekend meeting in northern Virginia with members of the House Intelligence Committee.

The two-day session was designed to promote a calmer atmosphere for discussing an array of intelligence issues, including the nation's eavesdropping laws. But participants said the event ended with a series of acrimonious exchanges.

Democrats accused McConnell of making exaggerated claims and of doing the bidding of the Bush administration, according to officials who attended the event. McConnell bristled at the Democrats' charges, and chastised members of the committee for failing to defend the intelligence community amid a barrage of bad press.

As a wise man once said, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."