Bush blocked probe of NSA program

[Secret Squirrel]

President Bush effectively blocked a Justice Department investigation of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program, refusing to give security clearances to attorneys who were attempting to conduct the probe, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday.

Bush's decision represents an unusually direct and unprecedented White House intervention into an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), the internal-affairs office at the Justice Department, administration officials and legal experts said. It forced the OPR to abandon its investigation into the role played by Justice Department officials in authorizing and monitoring the controversial NSA eavesdropping effort, according to officials and government documents.

"Since its creation some 31 years ago, OPR has conducted many highly sensitive investigations involving Executive Branch programs and has obtained access to information classified at the highest levels," the office's chief lawyer, H. Marshall Jarrett, wrote in a memorandum released Tuesday. "In all those years, OPR has never been prevented from initiating or pursuing an investigation."

The eavesdropping program, begun in secret after the Sept. 11 attacks and revealed in news reports last December, allows the NSA to intercept telephone calls and e-mails between the United States and locations overseas without court approval if one of the parties is suspected of links to terrorist groups.

In testimony Tuesday to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said that in matters involving access to classified programs, "the president of the United States makes the decision."

"The president decided that protecting the secrecy and security of the program requires that a strict limit be placed on the number of persons granted access to information about the program for non-operational reasons," Gonzales wrote in a related letter sent to the committee's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. "Every additional security clearance that is granted ... increases the risk that national security might be compromised."

However, Jarrett noted that clearances were granted to attorneys and agents from Justice and the FBI assigned to investigate the original leak of the NSA program's existence to the media. He also noted that other investigators and officials — including members of Congress and a federal civil-liberties board — had been granted access to or had been briefed on the program.

Jarrett had told lawmakers in May that his office was unable to proceed because it was repeatedly denied the necessary security clearances. But until Tuesday, Gonzales and other Justice Department officials wouldn't say who made the decision.

Some legal experts and members of Congress who have questioned the legality of the NSA program said Bush's move to quash the probe represented a politically motivated interference. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., one of the lawmakers who spearheaded calls for the review, said the move was an example of "an administration that thinks it doesn't have to follow the law."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the eavesdropping program has been subject to legal review every 45 days by senior officials, including Gonzales. "The Office of Professional Responsibility was not the proper venue for conducting" a legal review, Snow said.

link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003136381_nsa19.html)
.................

[usmcprincipal]

"Some legal experts and members of Congress who have questioned the legality of the NSA program said Bush's move to quash the probe represented a politically motivated interference. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., one of the lawmakers who spearheaded calls for the review, said the move was an example of "an administration that thinks it doesn't have to follow the law."
___________________________

Possible political motivations cut both ways. Conservatives would say this is an example of Democrats attempting to politicize the issue.

Interestingly, General Hagan's nomination to head the CIA sailed through Congress. I should think if impropriety was really suspected, the head of NSA would not have achieved such bipartisan support.

Semper Fidelis

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I have to admit that I don't yet have my head wrapped all the way around this issue - but it seems as though the administration didn't want a political fishing expedition mounted on this classified program. Maybe the OPR has had access to all kinds of classified info in the past - but what has the result been? The program was already the victim of people with security clearances not being able to keep their goddamn mouths shut. Maybe there is no real requirement for them to be poking into what they wanted to poke into in order to conduct the investigation.

[ElHombre]

I have to admit that I don't yet have my head wrapped all the way around this issue - but it seems as though the administration didn't want a political fishing expedition mounted on this classified program.

small problem with your theory. this probe was being mounted by justice department watchdogs itself, not congress. about the only reason bush personally would kill the investigation is because he's been informed that it would be found illegal. i admit that political hay could be made of the fact that a POTUS is allowing unlawful activity to be carried out with his okay, but that's typically what happens when an elected official breaks the law.

[Firetxmi]

So much for oversight. :roll:

[usmcprincipal]

Actually it appears to be very much political and I think certain members of congress are involved in the process. It reeks of chaff. Unfortunately in such a volatile political environment it is sometimes difficult to determine what is substantive and what merely passes for style points. In my judgement this does not pass the test.

I find it hard to believe that in such a highly charged political atmosphere congress would confirm the head of NSA to the position of CIA chief with only token opposition, if they actually believed his agency was circumventing the law. From my perspective the fuss lacks logic and appears purely political in nature.

Semper Fidelis

[pistol]

but it seems as though the administration didn't want a political fishing expedition mounted on this classified program.


And I couldn't agree more. It is time for Arlen Specter and the republican controlled senate judiciary commitee to get back to the business of rubber stamping this administration's policies.



Maybe the OPR has had access to all kinds of classified info in the past - but what has the result been? The program was already the victim of people with security clearances not being able to keep their goddamn mouths shut. Maybe there is no real requirement for them to be poking into what they wanted to poke into in order to conduct the investigation.

Again, you've hit the nail on the head. America would be better served by a Senate less concerned with the specifics of these so-called FISA laws and their so-called constitutional oversight responsibilities, and more concerned with protecting America from terrorists, and finding those responsible for leaking this critical, patriotic, and unquestionably legal, program.

[Siddar]

I find the fact that by refuseing to grant security clerances for these people the adminstration is stateing very bluntly that in fact it doesnt trust these lawyers.

Even larger is the unstated threat to everyone else about potential for mas revokeing of security clerances for those suspected of leaking. Looseing security clerance would be end of most of leakers prospects for ever holding a job in washington again. Even if many thought they were treated unfairly they still wouldnt ever be able to get confirmed by senate for any postion in executive are be trusted by executive if they were working for congress and no private sector company are lobby would risk the potential negative PR of hireing them.

Bush has made a rather large threat to leakers with this action. He has made it clear that he can make leakers pay a very large price even if its not through legal action in courts against them.

[Firetxmi]

I find the fact that by refuseing to grant security clerances for these people the adminstration is stateing very bluntly that in fact it doesnt trust these lawyers.

Even larger is the unstated threat to everyone else about potential for mas revokeing of security clerances for those suspected of leaking. Looseing security clerance would be end of most of leakers prospects for ever holding a job in washington again. Even if many thought they were treated unfairly they still wouldnt ever be able to get confirmed by senate for any postion in executive are be trusted by executive if they were working for congress and no private sector company are lobby would risk the potential negative PR of hireing them.

Bush has made a rather large threat to leakers with this action. He has made it clear that he can make leakers pay a very large price even if its not through legal action in courts against them.

I may be wrong, but I don't think these lawyers, or the OPR, is suspected of leaking anything. This is just this Admins way of stonewalling any meaningful investigation into the legality of it. Your right, it does send a message though.... Just not the one your thinking of.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

small problem with your theory. this probe was being mounted by justice department watchdogs itself, not congress. about the only reason bush personally would kill the investigation is because he's been informed that it would be found illegal.

well that supposition is based upon your personal biases. There are many reasons why he might kill the investigation. It is exactly as likely that he killed it because he was afraid of more leaks.



i admit that political hay could be made of the fact that a POTUS is allowing unlawful activity to be carried out with his okay, but that's typically what happens when an elected official breaks the law.

But what difference does it make who's doing the investigating? Are you saying that DOJ is above being used for political purposes? The bottom line is that like Snow said, there already is oversight of the program every 45 days - my guess is that the administration saw no benefit to having yet another federal agency poke into an already compromised program. Bush does not give up political ground easily - he will make them fight for it.

If he broke the law, where are the Dems demanding a special prosecutor? Where is the outrage - the press conferences - the Senate panel to begin impeachment? The answer is, of course, that the Dems have concluded that there would be more political damage to them for mounting such and expedition than could be gained from whatever they happened to find.



I find it hard to believe that in such a highly charged political atmosphere congress would confirm the head of NSA to the position of CIA chief with only token opposition, if they actually believed his agency was circumventing the law. From my perspective the fuss lacks logic and appears purely political in nature.

That's an excellent point - the proof is in the pudding after all. Just like with everything else the Democrats do these days, it seems to be all smoke an mirrors & done for effect. Vote for the war, then claim to be against it, then do nothing about it. Makes no sense - their true position can be determined by watching their actions, not their words.

[Firetxmi]

well that supposition is based upon your personal biases. There are many reasons why he might kill the investigation. It is exactly as likely that he killed it because he was afraid of more leaks.


So is he never going to allow anyone security clearance to classified stuff because they may leak something? Or is he only going to give it to people he personally trusts?

I will say this about him stonewalling this investigation, as many people have said about the wiretapping itself- "you shouldn't have a problem with it if your sticking to the laws."

[2Sheds_Jackson]

So is he never going to allow anyone security clearance to classified stuff because they may leak something? Or is he only going to give it to people he personally trusts?

I would say that it's a matter of pressure. The opposition can, at any time, ratchet up the pressure to get a full investigation about the program. If they truly believed that the issue deserved it, they would do it. But their political finger in the wind tells them that doing so would do more harm than good with the public- which means they don't expect to find much - which means their complaining is all hot political air.



I will say this about him stonewalling this investigation, as many people have said about the wiretapping itself- "you shouldn't have a problem with it if your sticking to the laws."

Well I would disagree with that a little - the very purpose for classifying a program is to limit the dissemination of information about it.

[pistol]

I would say that it's a matter of pressure. The opposition can, at any time, ratchet up the pressure to get a full investigation about the program. If they truly believed that the issue deserved it, they would do it. But their political finger in the wind tells them that doing so would do more harm than good with the public- which means they don't expect to find much - which means their complaining is all hot political air.


Speaking of hot air....Good old Arlen can't even get what he wants, but you think the minority can just "ratchet up pressure" and then they get whatever they want? Can you elaborate on this "ratchet" process?

[Mastermind]

I think this "NSA Thingy" is rather like a child touching a hot pan on the stove. Congress Bush Haters, the media Bush Bashers and some RINO's latched onto it as just another way to smear the administration and then suddenly realised it was totally the wrong thing to do...now they don't want anyone to know about it or tell about it.MM

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Speaking of hot air....Good old Arlen can't even get what he wants, but you think the minority can just "ratchet up pressure" and then they get whatever they want? Can you elaborate on this "ratchet" process?

Certainly - I can see where there is some disconnect here. When I say "ratchet up pressure" I don't literally mean that Democrat members of Congress should employ a mechanical device consisting of a toothed wheel or rack, which would engage a catch permitting it to move in only one direction in order to somehow create mechanical force applied uniformly over a surface - as a means to start an investigation. That's what's called a "metaphor" - a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.

In this case, I mean for the Democrat members of Congress, who represent the wishes and concerns of their constituency, would utilize the various laws and procedures at their disposal, along with the democratic process long established in Congress (the ratchet), to produce an inquiry(the pressure). The net effect of that process is that if there is not enough support for such an inquiry, it will not happen. And that appears to be the case. So what it means is that not enough people really care about it to press the issue. Why is that?

[pistol]

Certainly - I can see where there is some disconnect here. When I say "ratchet up pressure" I don't literally mean that Democrat members of Congress should employ a mechanical device consisting of a toothed wheel or rack, which would engage a catch permitting it to move in only one direction in order to somehow create mechanical force applied uniformly over a surface - as a means to start an investigation. That's what's called a "metaphor" - a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.


Thank you for this important lesson on metaphors! I appreciate your willingness to selflessly impart these sort of otherwise unobtainable nuggets of knowledge upon those of us who may be considerably less educated than yourself.



In this case, I mean for the Democrat members of Congress, who represent the wishes and concerns of their constituency, would utilize the various laws and procedures at their disposal, along with the democratic process long established in Congress (the ratchet), to produce an inquiry(the pressure). The net effect of that process is that if there is not enough support for such an inquiry, it will not happen. And that appears to be the case. So what it means is that not enough people really care about it to press the issue. Why is that?

I noticed that you sort of glassed-over the actual substance of the "laws and procedures" to which you are referring. Perhaps you could specifically cite some of the procedures available to members of the minority who are not statisfied with the majority's handling of this situation? From the tone of your previous posts it sounds like a pretty trivial process.

[Firetxmi]

Judge refuses to dismiss spying lawsuit

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 29 minutes ago

A federal judge Thursday refused to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Bush administration's domestic spying program, rejecting government claims that allowing the case to go forward could expose state secrets and jeopardize the war on terror.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said the warrantless eavesdropping has been so widely reported that there appears to be no danger of spilling secrets.

Dozens of lawsuits alleging that telecommunications companies and the government are illegally intercepting Americans' communications without warrants have been filed. This is the first time a judge has ruled on the government's claim of a "state secrets privilege."

"It might appear that none of the subject matter in this litigation could be considered a secret given that the alleged surveillance programs have been so widely reported in the media," Walker said.

Walker also wrote that he did not see how allowing the lawsuit to continue could threaten national security.

"The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one," Walker said. "But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security."

And in declining to dismiss AT&T Inc. from the lawsuit, filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation privacy group, Walker suggested the case had some merit. "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal," he wrote.

A Justice Department spokesman said the administration was reviewing the ruling before making its next step.

The lawsuit challenges President Bush's assertion that he can use his wartime powers to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant. It accuses AT&T of illegally making communications on its networks available to the National Security Agency without warrants.

AT&T, based in San Antonio, said in a statement that it values customers' privacy, but also recognizes its "obligation to assist law enforcement."

The government intervened in the case, telling Walker that Bush's surveillance program, adopted after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, is "a secret of the highest order."

The government argued that divulging any information about any alleged collusion between AT&T and the government to eavesdrop on Americans could subject AT&T employees and facilities to attack and would enable terrorists "to communicate more securely."

The state secrets defense, first recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in a McCarthy-era lawsuit, has been increasingly and successfully invoked by federal lawyers seeking to shield the government from court scrutiny.

The high court has upheld the legal tactic as recently as January, when it rejected an appeal from a former covert CIA officer who accused the agency of racial discrimination.

The president confirmed in December that the NSA has been conducting warrantless surveillance of calls and e-mails thought to involve al-Qaida terrorists if at least one of the parties to the communication is outside the United States.

The administration contends the program is legal and necessary, but has been mum on whether purely domestic calls and electronic communications are being monitored, as the lawsuit alleges.

A pending legislative compromise worked out by the White House and Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, would allow the president to submit the spy program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a one-time test of its constitutionality. That legislation, which has not been voted on, would remove the EFF case and others from the federal civil courts.

The EFF plans on asking Walker soon to rule on whether the president possesses wartime powers to authorize warrantless eavesdropping in the United States. The EFF alleges that San Antonio-based AT&T, which neither confirms nor denies the allegations, practices "wholesale surveillance" of its customers.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060720/ap_on_re_us/domestic_spying_lawsuit&printer=1;_ylt=ArFuzDL9EjeOyBEqmpwPac1H2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Thank you for this important lesson on metaphors! I appreciate your willingness to selflessly impart these sort of otherwise unobtainable nuggets of knowledge upon those of us who may be considerably less educated than yourself.

Oh hey, don't mention it. I'm always willing to be a complete pr*ck. It's just what I do. :)




I noticed that you sort of glassed-over the actual substance of the "laws and procedures" to which you are referring. Perhaps you could specifically cite some of the procedures available to members of the minority who are not statisfied with the majority's handling of this situation? From the tone of your previous posts it sounds like a pretty trivial process.

Besides all the largely symbolic methods that they've got (i.e. votes on bills they know will lose, blocking committee votes, non-binding resolutions) - there is the filibuster. If they really cared about this, they would be doing what they did with Bush's judicial nominees - they'd grind business to a halt until they got their way - or at least effected enough change to satisfy them. They certainly cared enough about many of Bush's judicial appointments to do it. But they don't care about this. They talk a lot, to great effect, but they do nothing.

[pistol]

Besides all the largely symbolic methods that they've got (i.e. votes on bills they know will lose, blocking committee votes, non-binding resolutions) - there is the filibuster. If they really cared about this, they would be doing what they did with Bush's judicial nominees - they'd grind business to a halt until they got their way - or at least effected enough change to satisfy them. They certainly cared enough about many of Bush's judicial appointments to do it. But they don't care about this. They talk a lot, to great effect, but they do nothing.

Oh geeze. If Harry Reid introduced a bill on the NSA spying program, then filibustered it, the majority would be clamoring all over themselves to unleash the "nuclear option". You would probably be sitting in this very thread ranting about how the minority is just making a power grab, and how we should really be concentrating on whoever leaked the program instead of whether or not it is legal. It will, however, be interesting if Arlen "Rubber Stamp" Specter gets his wiretap surrender (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR2006071401578.html) bill to the floor.