"This
is the Time... and
|
This
is the Record,
|
of
the Time..."
|
-
Laurie Anderson
Big
Science |
* DOWNLOAD THE SET
WRITTEN
STATEMENTS
PANELIST STATEMENTS
REPRESENTATIVE
STATEMENTS
LETTERS
28 Members of Congress
asked for details in this
Reps Conyers' and Scott's
re FBI mishandling
Brandon Mayfield
Case
18 Members of
Congress
asked the President
to Appoint Special Counsel
in this
Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist threatens
to restructure the
Senate Intelligence
Oversight Committee
to avoid investigating in this
SENATE
STATEMENTS
AND
TESTIMONY
On February 28, 2006
Professor Harold H. Koh
Yale Law, gave this
CONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH SERVICE
PAPERS
Elizabeth B. Bazan
and
Jennifer K. Elsea
January 5, 2006
Alfred Cummings
January 18, 2006
RELATED
ACTIONS
LAWSUITS
FOIA
ISSUES BRIEFINGS
ACLU
RELEVANT
US SUPREME COURT
POLICY STATEMENTS
American Bar
Association:
ABA's Roster,
Recommendations,
and Report adopted as
ABA
Policy, and sent with that letter
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW
Open
Society Institute:
local:
Morton H. Halperin
original: here
Center for
National
Security Studies
local:
Kate Martin and
Brittany Benowitz
original: here
CNSS
(Mirror/Snapshot)
(CNSS Site)
New York Review
of
Books
local:
Constitutional
Scholars
original: here
American
Bar Association
local:
Editorial Opinion Op-Ed:
Michael S. Greco
original: here
David
C. Manchester
article:
BIG
BROTHER
IS WATCHING YOU:
includes
TIA LIVES original: here
article:
BIG
BROTHER
IS WATCHING YOU PART 2
includes
PENDING
INVESTIGATIONS: NONE
MILITARY
INTELLIGENCE INFILTRATION
OF PEACEFUL GROUPS
The Senate has no current plans
to fully investigate.
The House has no
current plans to fully
investigate. |
MILITARY
INTELLIGENCE ARDA CONTINUANCE OF FUNDING FOR TIA WARRANTLESS DATA MINING
The Senate has no current plans
to fully investigate.
The House has no
current plans to fully
investigate. |
DOCUMENT
SUMMARY
Hold Them Responsible.
This is an election year.
Who
paid to elect Your
Member of Congress?
Find
out at
|
Related External Links
Wikipedia:
FindLaw
News Document Archive
Cryptome
ACLU
EFF
EPIC
AfterDowningStreet.org
Fair Use Notice
If You link to this page from a related
article, please email the address at the bottom of this page and send
the URL that links here so I can add it to the list of Related External
Links above.
Thanks,
-dcm
|
|
STATEMENTS,
TRANSCRIPT,
AND
DOCUMENTS
OF RELATED ACTIONS
"A
state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to
the rights of the Nationโs citizens.โ
Justice Sandra Day OโConnor
United States Supreme Court
|
|
On
December 16 2005
the New York Times (NYT) broke the
story by Reporters James Risen and
Erick Lichtblau that the President of the United States, in
secret,
ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans a few
months after the September 11 2001 attacks, without court
approved
warrants as required under Federal Law, Although the NYT
had known
about the story for a year, they did not publish it until December 2005.
As Congressional demands for more information about this warrantless
domestic surveillance campaign grew, the Bush Administration remained
steadfast in their assertions that all laws had been obeyed despite the
end-run around the special secret Federal Court designed to handle such
cases under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is
empowered to approve domestic surveillance after the fact.
"...so
indiscriminate and sweeping a scheme of domestic intrusion into the
private communications of American citizens, predicated entirely on the
unchecked judgment of the Executive Branch, violates the Fourth
Amendment 'right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable
searches and seizures' even if it otherwise represents an exercise of
constitutional power entrusted to the President by Article II or
delegated to the President by Congress in exercising its powers under
Article I...
...the argument goes... Invasion of that citizenโs privacy was, alas,
but one of warโs sad side effects โ a species of collateral damage.
The technical legal term for that, I
believe, is poppycock. โ
Laurence H. Tribe
Professor of Constitutional Law
Harvard University
|
|
When
confronted with questions about his secret warrrantless domestic
surveillance program, President Bush further asserted
that he did not need FISA approval, and remained unwilling to provide
timely information to the Congressional Committees charged with
oversight. Instead the administration claimed the executive
branch
obligation to provide information to the full House and Senate
Permanent Committees on Intelligence, as required by law, was fulfilled
by their current practice of briefing only a select few members of
those committees, under a set of executive - branch designed ground
rules
that allowed those receiving the briefings to ask no questions, and
prohibited them from discussing it afterwards, even with other members
of their respective oversight committees.
"...it is not
simply a claim that the President has the sole power to decide which
laws to violate and when to go outside the judicial power, but that he
has the power to do so in secret.
...until the New
York Times reviewed this program, he withheld the fact from the
American people that his view was that FISA did not limit his
powers. He secretly believed that he had broader authority than
was laid out in the public statutes, but he withheld and misled the
American people about that view of his own powers...
...examine what
kind of misleading statements, if not deception, were put before the
Congress in connection with thisโ
Kate Martin
Director
Center for National Security Studies
|
|
To the Bush
administration the Authorisation
for the Use of Military Force (AUMF)
passed by Congress is taken to be a Declaration of
War under the Constitution, while many members of Congress do not
agree, and contend that there has been no such formal declaration, and
that AUMF was never intended to give the President
such sweeping power
to pick and choose which laws they would obey. To them, the
current
President appears to just be doing whatever he wants regardless of the
roles of the Congress or the Judiciary branches of American government.
"...when Congress
enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, it expressly
rejected the Presidentโs claim of inherent authority to conduct
warrantless wiretaps.
It then went further and made it a crime to conduct such wiretaps.
The President has acted contrary to the express will of the Congress.
The Supreme Court has never approved a claim of presidential authority
to authorize acts outlawed by the Congress.โ
Kate Martin
Director
Center for National Security Studies
|
|
Frustrated by the
stonewalling of vital intelligence information they
need to do their jobs under the law, Congressmen Conyers, Scott, and
Van Hollen hosted a public Congressional Briefing on the matter in an
effort to begin to fulfill their oversight obligations under the law to
provide a check on unbounded executive branch power.
"...under
his interpretation ... he could suspend the writ of habeas corpus, ...
saying: This authorization enabled me to do anything in furtherance of
the war effort. I can suspend the writ of habeas corpus unilaterally
even though Congress hasn't ...
He could authorize breaking and entering of homes in order to secure
intelligence to fight the war against terrorism, despite the fact that
there is an authorized procedure in an amendment to FISA that governs
physical searches...
...the principle that the President has established here, if gone
unchecked, will, as Justice Robert Jackson said, lie around like a
loaded gun and be utilized by any future incumbent who claims a need.
And the history of power teaches us one thing, that if it's unchecked,
it will be abused.โ
Bruce Fein
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Reagan Administration
|
|
In the briefing
held 20 January 2006 by the Democratic members of the House Judiciary
Committee, the warrantless wiretapping and data-mining of
telecommunications company and internet provider databases by the NSA,
and elements of Military Intelligence domestic civil infiltration
operations were discussed. A number of participants made statements,
and those statements and other documents were made available in pdf
format at the above link. Then, on 31 January, the Electronic
Frontier Foundation filed a class action suit against
AT&T/SBC and others yet unnamed in this matter, and released this complaint in pdf format .
Three days prior to this
Briefing, the ACLU
filed a complaint against
the NSA Central Security Services and Lieutenant General Keith B.
Alexander in the US District Court, Eastern Michigan District, Southern
District in this matter, releasing their
complaint in pdf format.
"...agents
of the 902nd Military Intelligence Group from Fort Meade, MD ...
infiltrated the Quaker Meeting House, and then filed a report
designating us a CREDIBLE THREAT.
The presidentโs agents DID NOT come to worship alongside us, to help us
plan our educational program, or to protect us.
"And it
wasnโt just us. Shortly after NBC aired its report, churches and other
groups began sharing their experiences of infiltration and intimidation
with us.
Saint Mauriceโs Catholic Church in Dania, the Unitarian Universalists,
the Fort Lauderdale Friends, members of Pax Christi in West Palm Beach,
environmental groups, and many others.
"Agents rummaged through trash, attacked and snooped into email, hacked
web sites, and listened in on phone conversations ... address books and
activist meeting lists have disappeared.โ
Richard Hersh
The Truth Project, Inc.
|
|
A week before the House
Judiciary Democratic Members held this Briefing, on 13 February 2006
the American Bar
Association adopted as policy a set of recommendations
made by the ABA
Task Force on Domestic Surveillance created
by ABA President Michael S. Greco January 10 to respond to revelations
about NSA domestic
surveillance. These
were sent with a letter the President,
and both are available here in html form.
This came alongside the
release of an ABA - sponsored
Harris Poll
showing 77 percent of Americans expressed "deep reservations"
about President Bush's secret surveillance program, and agreeing that
the President alone can not lawfully suspend Constitutionally
guaranteed freedoms without authorisation from Congress or the Courts.
"Congress
must conduct hearings to determine exactly what is being done ...
Then it should determine what needs to be done to insure that, in the
future, Presidents obey the law.โ
Morton H. Halperin
Director of US Advocacy, Open Society Institute,
Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
|
|
The ABA Task Force Roster
includes former
FBI Director William S. Sessions; former CIA and NSA General Counsel
Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker; former Assistant Secretary of State Harold
Hongju Koh; former Assistant CIA General Counsel and Deputy Staff
Directory and General Counsel for the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence Suzanne E. Spaulding; former Legal Counsel for the World
Bank's International Finance Corporation James R. Silkenat; former
Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Associate Independent Counsel for
the Iran-Contra Investigation Stephen A. Saltzburg; former Senior Legal
Officer for WIPO's (World Intellectual Property Organisation)
Arbitration and Mediation Center Deborah Enix-Ross; Mark D. Agrast,
Senior Fellow of the Center for American Progress overseeing
Constitutional and Rule of Law programs; former Assistant US Attorney
Neal R. Sonnet, who served as Chief of the Criminal Division for the
Southern District of Florida; and Alan J. Rothstein, General Counsel to
the New York City Bar Association. The detailed Roster is
available at http://www.abanet.org/op/domsurv.html.
"In
each case the presidentโs answer has been the same ... Courts and
Congress have little or no place to question his decisions.
...it is nonetheless a dangerous path for our nation.
Our laws provide ample tools for fighting terrorism without eroding
basic liberties.
No one, not even a wartime president, is above the lawโ
Michael S. Greco
President, American Bar Association
|
|
On December 20, four days after the initial NY Times story, Kate
Martin and Brittany Benowitz of the Center for National Security
Studies published an analysis of just how the Bush -
ordered sweeping warrantless NSA data - mining and wiretapping
operation violated the law. "When Congress authorized secret
wiretaps for national security purposes in 1978," wrote Martin and
Benowitz, "it intended to prevent any future President from carrying
out warrantless eavesdropping on Americans." In it's formulation
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) statute, they
wrote, Congress "made its intention clear in five different sections."
On January 6, Morton H. Halperin, the Director of US Advocacy for
the George Soros - sponsored Open Society Institute, and Senior Fellow
at the Center for American Progress, wrote a more detailed legal
analysis of the administration's justifications for the warrantless
wholesale domestic surveillance program.
"...as
a citizen, I have heard today that the President has obviously broken
the law, ... he has admitted that he's broken the law, and if you
read the oath of office, he's not upheld the Constitution of the United
States.
I think it's time for us to act.โ
Richard Hersh
The Truth Project, Inc.
|
|
Where the Martin and Benowitz memorandum concentrated on the ways the
President had broken the FISA law, and the provisions of Federal
Law permitting the President to institute domestic wiretaps for
national security reasons which FISA replaced (Pub. L. No. 90-351, 82
Stat. 212 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 2510-2520
(1968))). and restricted it's discussion of specific litigation to the Keith case (United States v. United
States District Court [Keith], 407 U.S. 297, 303 (1972)1); the Halperin paper
went further into case law in it's analysis of the administration
claimed pretense of legality.
"Without
commenting in any way on press reports, let me assure you that AT&T
abides by all applicable laws, regulations and statutes in its
operations and, in particular, with respect to requests for assistance
from governmental authorities.โ
Wayne Watts
Senior Vice President and General Counsel,
AT&T
|
|
After effectively demolishing Bush administration arguments as to the
legality of warrantless NSA domestic wiretaps and data - mining,
Halperin concludes, "Congress must conduct hearings to determine
exactly what is being done in the new NSA program and why the
administration concluded that it could not use FISA. Then it should
determine what needs to be done to insure that, in the future,
Presidents obey the law.."
"I
thought Congress passed safeguards against indiscriminate domestic
spying after the gross violations of citizens' rights during the Civil
Rights Movement and Vietnam peace activism.
But here we are again.โ
Richard Hersh
The Truth Project, Inc.
|
|
On February 24, eighteen
Members of Congress, unsatisfied with Attorney General Gonzales'
evasive and unresponsive testimony to date, wrote another letter to President Bush
and once again requested that the Justice Department follow the law and
it's own rules, and appoint a Special Counsel to investigate
warrantless NSA surveillance of US Persons. In this letter they
wrote,
...Unfortunately,
Mr. Gonzales' recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee
did little to answer our questions or dispel our concerns. Rather, the
Attorney General's opaque testimony simply left us with even more
questions about this program. Mr. Gonzales repeatedly refused to
discuss what he called the "operational details" of this program,
refusing to inform the Committee of such โoperational details" as
whether the Department discloses to the FISA court its use of
information garnered from this program in obtaining warrants from the
court - in other words, whether the Department was pursuing
prosecutions based on evidence gathered in possible violation of FISA
and the 4th Amendment. Press reports indicate that, in
fact, evidence
gathered under this program may have been used improperly to obtain
warrants from the FISA court.12
Mr. Gonzales refused to provide
โoperational details " such as whether the Administration has conducted
warrantless physical searches of Americans in reliance on the authority
it claims under the AUMF.
Mr. Gonzales gave no explanation for the
president's decision to limit this program (assuming it is in fact so
limited) to international calls, vaguely citing the โcircumstances" in
which the Administration found itself as the basis for this decision.
He also failed to confirm that he was โfully, totally informed" about
the program, and could not provide assurances that Americans
unconnected to Al Qaeda were not being spied upon. He failed to provide
assurances that purely domestic calls were never captured by this
program. He refused to commit to the program's review by the FISA
court. He declined to answer when asked what other activities you have
authorized relying upon the power as Commander-in-Chief used to
authorize this surveillance program. The Attorney General offered
contradictory testimony on whether surveillance conducted under this
program would meet the 4th Amendmentโs probable cause
standard. The
Attorney General's testimony raised serious questions that previous
Congressional testimony by Department officials about the
Administrationโs surveillance programs was misleading. Far from
providing additional information to Congress, the Attorney General's
testimony simply created more serious questions about the legality and
constitutionality of the activities you authorized.
At every juncture, our efforts to seek
investigations to answer questions such as these have been stymied,
generally based on the feeblest of excuses. More than a month ago,
several members of Congress wrote to the Inspector Generals of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Justice asking them to
begin investigating these reports.13 The Department of
Justice's
Inspector General, Mr. Glenn Fine, responded that he lacked
jurisdiction to begin an investigation because the matter involved the
Attorney General's provision of โlegal advice."14
The same members
wrote back to Mr. Fine, explaining that the official actions for which
they sought investigation appeared to go far beyond the mere provision
of legal advice, and that he lacked any basis to conclude otherwise in
the absence of an investigation. Yet, despite that response, Mr. Fine
has steadfastly refused to investigate. The office within the
Department of Justice to which he referred our request for
investigation failed to respond to our request. Although recent
press
reports indicate that this office has begun a review, the Department
has also made clear that this review will not examine the lawfulness of
any Justice Department officials' actions under this program. 15 |
December
18, 2005,
To the Senate & House Intelligence Committees:
"Dear Chairman Roberts,
Under the provisions of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower
Protection Act (ICWPA), I intend to report to Congress probable
unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while I was an
intelligence officer with the National Security Agency (NSA) and with
the Defense Intelligence Agency ( DIA). These acts involve the
Director of the National Security Agency, the Deputies Chief of Staff
for Air and Space Operations, and the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
These probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts were conducted via
very highly sensitive intelligence programs and operations known as
Special Access Programs (SAP)s. I was a technical intelligence
specialist dealing almost exclusively with SAP programs and operations
at both NSA and DIA.
Due to the highly sensitive nature of these programs and operations, I
will require assurances from your committee that the staffers and/or
congressional members to participate retain the proper security
clearances, and also have the appropriate SAP cleared facilities
available for these discussions.
Please inform me when you require my appearance on Capitol Hill to
conduct these discussions in relation to this ICWPA report.
Very Respectfully,
Russell D. Ticeโ
|
ON THE SENATE SIDE -
ACTIONS AND EVASIONS
(Check
Wikipedia
for a more comprehensive report)
It seems that without a
majority working bipartisan coalition in either house any effort for a
full investigation of warrantless NSA surveillance is likely doomed
until after the November 2006 elections, when Democrats have an
increasingly good chance to regain majorities.
From Senate Intelligence
Committee Co-Chairman John D. Rockefeller, IV's January
25 press statement ( http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2006/pr012506.html)
"On
December 19, 2006, a bipartisan group of Senate Intelligence Committee
members, Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Carl Levin (D-MI),
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) urged Chairman Roberts and
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Arlen Specter (R-PA), to
immediately and jointly review allegations and concerns related to the
NSA program. Separately, on the same day, another member of
the committee, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), also wrote to Chairman
Roberts urging hearings on the program ."
"Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-WV), the Vice Chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee, personally wrote to Chairman Roberts on
January 10, 2006, calling for aggressive oversight of the program. In
addition to examining the legal justification for and operational
details of the program, Rockefeller urged the committee to hold
hearings and examine the following: What are the legal justifications
for the program; what electronic communications were intercepted; how
is the information collected being minimized and used; and how is the
information retained. ( January
10 letter attached)"
Then on January 24, 2006,
"In a
letter ... to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, Pat Roberts
(R-KS), all seven Democratic members of the committee requested that
the Chairman hold a business meeting to vote on authorizing a committee
investigation into the controversial NSA domestic surveillance
program. To date, the Chairman has not committed to holding
hearings on the program. Under committee rules, the Chairman must
call for a business meeting within seven calendar days if at least five
members of the committee make a formal request in writing. (January
24 letter attached) "
"The
inquiries currently underway, and the ones being proposed by the
minority, would demand an overwhelming amount of staff time, attention
and resources. Rather than conducting oversight of the
intelligence community and its activities, or assessing current and
future threats to United States national security, the committee is
focusing most of its efforts on investigations that offer little (or
no) value to the challenges our Nation now faces...
If
attempts to use the committee's charter for political purposes persist,
we may have to simply acknowledge that nonpartisan oversight, while a
worthy aspiration, is not possible. If we are unable to reach
agreement, I believe we must consider other options to improve the
Committee's oversight capabilities, to include restructuring the
Committee...โ
William H. Frist, M.D.
Majority Leader
United States Senate
March 3, 2006
|
|
The Republican leadership
is finding it hard to ignore the increasing number of Members, in both
Houses, on both sides of the aisle, calling for a full
investigation. So on March 3, Republican Senate Majority Leader
William "Bill" Frist, M.D., signaled his readiness to unilaterally re -
design the Senate Permanent Committee on Intelligence rather than
permit an investigation go forward which would fulfill it's statutory,
and moral obligations to the American People. The text of Senator
Frist, M.D.'s threat, in the form of a letter to Senate Minority Leader
Harold Reid, is available here in html form.
"The NSA surveillance program is blatantly illegal
because it permits wiretapping within the United States without any of
the safeguards for electronic surveillance presumptively required by
the Fourth Amendment or FISA โstatutory authorization, individualized
probable cause, or a warrant or other order issued by a judge or
magistrate.
The Supreme Court has never upheld such a sweeping, unchecked power of
government to invade the privacy of Americans without individualized
suspicion or congressional or judicial oversight.
None of the defenses offered by the Administration explain why it
refused to follow the time-tested warrant requirements of the FISA
Court. If the Administration felt that FISA was insufficient for its
present-day needs, it should have sought a legislative amendment โ as
Congress expressly contemplated when it enacted the wartime wiretap
provision in FISA. Instead, the Administration conducted a covert
end-run around FISA, and when that end-run came to light, it claimed
incorrectly that its actions were legal.โ
Harold H. Koh
Professor of International Law
Yale Law School
February 28, 2006
|
|
On
February 28, 2006, The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing at
which Yale Law Professor Harold Hongju Koh gave testimony. Professor
Koh served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human
Rights and Labor from 1998 to 2001. He teaches international law, the
law of U.S. foreign relations, international human rights,
international organizations and international regimes, international
business transactions, international trade and civil procedure.
"Taken seriously, the Presidentโs reading of the
Constitution would render Congress a pointless rubberstamp, limited in
an unending war on terror to enacting laws that the President can
ignore at will and issuing blank checks that the President can redefine
at will."
Harold H. Koh
Professor of International Law
Yale Law School
February 28, 2006
|
|
Here is
Professor Koh's Statement
to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and some direct links into Professor Koh's
Statement, and to some
of the Supreme Court decisions he cites in his statement:
CASE
REFERENCES
(Case
Name links to
Print - Friendly versions - dcm)
|
Congressional
Research Service Papers
On January 5, 2006, the Congressional Research
Service (CRS) released a comprehensive analysis of the Presidents'
legal authority to order warrantless wiretaps. Authored by
Elizabeth B. Bazan and Jennifer K. Elsea, this milestone report gives a
very thorough review of relevant case law, citing over 17 US Supreme
Court decisions. It may well become an important benchmark,
required reading for those who are to participate in the
investigations, hearings, and proceedings yet to come about the Bush
residency in the Oval Office.
From the introduction,
"This memorandum lays out a general
framework for analyzing the constitutional and statutory issues raised
by the NSA electronic surveillance activity. It then outlines the legal
framework regulating electronic surveillance by the government,
explores ambiguities in those statutes that could provide exceptions
for the NSA intelligence-gathering operation at issue, and addresses
the arguments that the President possesses inherent authority to order
the operations or that Congress has provided such authority."
Here is the full table of
contents of this important document:
CASE
REFERENCES
(Case
Name links to
Print - Friendly versions - dcm)
|
Then,
on January
18, 2006, the CRS released another landmark: An analysis by
Alfred Cumming, a specialist in
intelligence and national security in the Foreign Affairs, Defense and
Trade Divisions. Entitled Statutory Procedures Under
Which Congress Is To Be Informed of U.S. Intelligence Activities,
Including Covert Actions,
Cummings gives a lucid recounting to the statutory requirements and
legislative history behind the laws the President has broken, and the
reasons such laws were enacted. This CRS paper also anticipates
the Bush administration's claim to have satisfied statutory obligations
by giving "don't - ask - don't - tell" briefings to a small subset of
the full oversight committees, in contravention of the laws in force
that require the full oversight committees to be "fully and currently"
briefed.
Here are a few direct
links into Alfred Cummings' January 18, 2006 CRS
Report:
NSA Builds Telecom Caller Database
On May 10, Leslie Cauley of USA
Today reported "the National Security Agency has been secretly
collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans,
using data provided by AT&T,
Verizon and BellSouth...For customers of these companies, it means that
the government has detailed records of calls they made - across town or
across the country - to family members, co-workers, business contacts
and others."
A digest of USA Today coverage from their May 11 print edition, and
their editorial content from May 17 and 18 print editions is included
in the article BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU
PART 2, along with an introductory comment outlining some details
of personal consequences of reporting on this issue, with an example of
attempted intimidation through automobile sabotage. An editorial
by David C. Manchester,
creator of this site, is also included in this article.
Also a topic included in this article is NSA chief General Michael
Hayden's nomination to head the CIA. Hayden's confirmation
hearings began May 18, 2006, and is the subject of some of the articles
and editorials in this digest.
An Observation
It would appear there is no institution of American life, no matter how
time - tested, that the Republican Party will not discard in it's
defense of the presidency of George W. Bush. Using the cover of
"national security" the Republican Party has apparently decided, in
secret, that a government in the form of a democratic representative
republic no longer will adequately serve the aims of their campaign
contributors, and that major restructuring in support of
executive authoritarianism in the manner of fascism must now be
undertaken.
Given the track record of the 2000, and 2004 conduct of the elections,
the American electorate would be wise to take extraordinary pains to
ensure the fairness, inclusiveness, and accuracy of the upcoming 2006
elections. The form of government of the United States of
America, the primacy of the rule of law, the adherence to the Bill of
Rights, and virtually every First Principle of the republic are at
stake. The party in control of the White House, and of both
houses of Congress, and having the majority of votes on the Supreme
Court, has shown it views those vital principles to be of value only
insofar as they are expedient to the Republican Party's retention of
power; and that all lesser concerns, including national security, port
security, and due process of law, must take a back seat.
In the belief that these statements and
documents of related actions should enjoy
a wider distribution I have been
converting them to html and placing them online. As I continue these
conversions, I will update this comment. Here
are what I have so far.
DOWNLOAD
THIS SET
OF DOCUMENTS
(NOTE:
All links are local, and only refer to the filename alone (except links
into "Personal Account
- Earth"). So You
can download the archive, unzip into any directory, and this page will
still
work when You are not online... Once You download and unzip it into a
specific shared folder, another User on Your local network can
download, or browse, as well -dcm)
STATEMENT
EXCERPTS - 20 JANUARY BRIEFING
Below
are a few excerpts from the prepared written statements, and the oral
Testimony of the Panelists from the Transcript. Links to the
relevant oral Testimony before the Committee will take You directly to
those statements in the Transcript. Additionally, a Table of
Contents has been provided at the top of the Transcript, to make it
more easier to find a particular Panelist's or Congressman's or
Congresswoman's remarks. Where I say "Statement" below, I refer
to the prepared written statement, and link to the top of the
file.. Where I say "Testimony" below,
I refer to oral remarks given in the Briefing, found in the
Transcript of the Proceedings, and the link will take You to that
place in the Transcript where those remarks occur. -dcm
|
Jonathan
Turley is a
law professor at George Washington University, a
nationally
recognized legal scholar who's written extensively on
constitutional law, legal theory and tort law. Mr. Turley is also
a
litigator of national security and constitutional law. He has written
extensively on electronic surveillance, constitutional and national
security issues. Professor Turley teaches constitutional law,
constitutional criminal procedure and related subjects. As
a
litigator, he has handled a variety of national security cases,
including espionage and terrorism cases involving
classified evidence
under both the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) and
FISA.1
From Turley's Testimony:
quote:
"...The
Supreme Court has rejected the very claims being
made by the President with regard to the NSA
operation. This operation falls under what Justice Jackson referred
to as the lowest possible exhibit in terms of
executive authority. It is in direct contradiction of FISA.
"Now, I want to be absolutely clear. What the President
ordered in this case was a crime.
"We can debate whether he had a good or bad motivation, but it was a
crime.
"Federal law makes it clear you cannot engage in this type
of
surveillance, in a domestic surveillance operation, without
committing a crime and that you can go to jail for 5 years.
"Now, we can debate the wisdom of that. We can debate
why the President may have done it.
"But, in my view, the President committed a crime, and we have to deal with that as
citizens and, unfortunately, you have to deal with that as
Members of Congress.
"It gives me no pleasure to say that, but
it also strikes me as an alarming circumstance when the
President can go into a press conference and announce
that he has violated a Federal statute 30 times and promises
to continue to do so until someone stops him.
"That's the most remarkable admission I've ever heard from
a
President of the United States." ...
[brief discussion
of FISA warrant requirements and NSA as watchdog on President's
exceeding their authority]
"... Well,
this President has exceeded his authority.
"Under FISA there are three exceptions that allow the
President to, in one case, engage in surveillance and proceed
later to get approval. The suggestion that time was of the
essence is a ludicrous one.
"I have reduced the White Paper by the Justice
Department into five central claims, all of which, frankly, I
believe is meritless. The first and most important is that the President has
inherent authority to violate Federal law and the Fourth
Amendment. That is the most dangerous claim of all.
"Historically, our most serious wounds as a Nation have been
self-inflicted wounds. They have been done when we have been
afraid. They have not been done by external evil forces.
We did it to ourselves. And the way that that happens
is when we remain passive and silent in the face of
unchecked authority.
"If you take a look at these claims - and I won't go through
them because time is limited here. I will simply remind
this institution of its duty.
"The Framers believed that, despite any affiliation to the President, Congress would
jealously protect its authority. It's a duty to protect
a legacy that you were given and all citizens were given.
"What's at stake is not a President who has committed crimes.
It's much more serious than that. What's at stake is a
President who is committing crimes in a name or a pretense
of legality. He is saying that he has the
authority to do that.
"Now, members that stay silent are making a choice. Very few
members have faced this type of test of faith. But you are
facing it now, and as citizens and as members, it's now up
to us.
"We're called to account to the many benefits that we
have gotten from this system. We're called to account
to do something and not to remain silent."
Professor
Turley gave a
comprehensive written statement, outlining the separation of powers and
how
FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) fits into it, the Bush
administration's five arguments to legally justify this use of the NSA,
and gave analysis of why these arguments do not hold water.
From Turley's Statement:
quote:
"This
growing constitutional crisis will call upon members of this body to
take a stand. The Framers expected that, even when affiliated
politically with a president, Congress would act to protect its own
institutional authority and to preserve the integrity of the tripartite
system of governance. Thus far, while the judiciary has been asserting
its independence and authority vis-ร -vis the President, it is
not clear
that this trust was well-placed in Congress. These are dangerous times
for our constitutional system. It is often the case that our greatest
threats come from within. Indeed, Justice Brandeis warned the nation to
remain alert to the encroachments of men of zeal in such times:
"Experience
should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the
Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally
alert to repel invasions of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The
greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
"Members should
not engage in the dangerous delusion that they can remain silent and
thus remain uncommitted in this crisis. Remaining silent is a choice;
it is a choice to permit the assertion of raw, unchecked authority by a
single individual.
"I hope that members of this branch will heed
the call of the Framers to act to preserve the vital balance of power
in our system. What is at stake is not merely the issue of a president
committing federal crimes, but a president who commits such crimes
under a claim of absolute authority. It is far more dangerous when
crimes are committed under the false pretense of legality. It is an
abuse of power that can corrode a system from within. It can lure other
branches into a dangerous passivity and to eventual obsolescence. Few
members of Congress have faced such a challenge in their careers. Yet,
I believe that we are all (citizens and members alike) now called to
account for the many benefits that we have received from our
constitutional system."
|
Richard
Hersh relates his experience of his Quaker Church group being
infiltrated by agents of the 902nd Military Intelligence Group from
Fort Meade, MD.
From Hersh's Statement:
quote:
"In
November of 2004, people who represented an association of religious,
educational, environmental, peace and social justice activists met at
the Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Florida. This group formed The
Truth Project, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation whose purpose is
to help educate high school students and their parents about military
service and to give them enough accurate information to make informed
choices about critical decisions..."
"The Quakers welcomed us
into their church, because they believed our intent was non-violent and
was in keeping with their deeply-felt beliefs of teaching peace and
understanding. They knew our purpose was solely to exercise our First
Amendment Rights to assemble peacefully, speak freely, and worship as
we choose.
"We had no idea until one year later that the
unfamiliar faces in the church had been sent by the President โs
Department of Defense to spy on us; NBC News investigators showed us
that agents of the 902nd Military Intelligence Group from Fort Meade,
MD, where the National Security Agency is headquartered, infiltrated
the Quaker Meeting House, and then filed a report designating us a
CREDIBLE THREAT. The president โs agents DID NOT come to worship
alongside us, to help us plan our educational program, or to protect us.
"And
it wasn โt just us. Shortly after NBC aired its report, churches and
other groups began sharing their experiences of infiltration and
intimidation with us. Saint Mauriceโs Catholic Church in Dania, the
Unitarian Universalists, the Fort Lauderdale Friends, members of Pax
Christi in West Palm Beach, environmental groups, and many others.
"Agents
rummaged through trash, attacked and snooped into email, hacked web
sites, and listened in on phone conversations. Indeed, address books
and activist meeting lists have disappeared.
"President Bush tells us only a few phone calls are listened to, but
THAT โS NOT TRUE.
"Mr. Bush says they only monitor calls to foreign countries, but THAT
is ABSOLUTELY untrue.
"He
tells us that he spies only on known Al-Qaida contacts or affiliates,
but I know for a fact that is NOT TRUE, because I was spied on in a
house of worship IN THE UNITED STATES, and in private homes in Florida
where I was meeting with other peaceful persons engaged in
constitutionally-protected activity.
"I HAVE EVERY REASON TO
BELIEVE that the federal government listens to my phone calls to family
members and friends about purely personal matters.
"I have every
reason to believe that the presidentโs agents READ my e-mail,
PHOTOGRAPH me as I exercise my Constitutional Rights, RECORD the
license numbers of cars I ride in, and CREATE huge databases with
information about me and my fellow activists, BECAUSE all of this
specific activity is on record, from government files, as having been
visited on American citizens, around the United States, by members of
the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the FBI, the NSA and other agencies.
"If
as George Orwell once said, 'In times of universal deceit, telling the
truth is a revolutionary act, ' we members of the Truth Project,
Inc.,
must be revolutionaries.
"I
thought Congress passed safeguards against
indiscriminate domestic spying after the gross violations of citizens โ
rights during the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam peace activism.
"But
here we are again. Like the Church Committee.
"Today,
I think President
Bush should confess the true extent of his domestic spying program.
"Confession
is good for the soul.
"I
think HE should tell the truth.
"That
truth shall set us all free."
|
James
Bamford is the author of The Puzzle Palace: A Report on NSA, America โs
Most Secret Agency (Houghton Mifflin, 1982) and its sequel, Body of
Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultrasecret National Security Agency
(Doubleday, 2001). His most recent book is A Pretext For War: 9/11,
Iraq
and the Abuse of America โs Intelligence Agencies (Doubleday, 2004).
At
one point during questions, Bamford noted that when most Americans
think of wiretapping, they think of some guy on a telephone pole with
some alligator clips, and were for the most part completely unaware of
the idea of how signals intelligence is applied in practice.
From Bamford's Statement:
quote:
"With
no longer any FISA buffer between the NSA eavesdroppers and the
American public, anyoneโs communications can be targeted. Once a name
is placed secretly on NSAโs watchlist, it will likely be sent not only
to other agencies within the United States, but also to NSAโs partner
agencies in the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
"And
like India ink, there is no removal.
"Five years later, when an innocent
target attempts to get a new mortgage or take a trip to England, they
may be turned down or turned away, with no explanation given. Who is a
target would also likely change as administrations change.
"Today
it
might be a Muslim who demonstrates against the Bush administration โs
war in Iraq.But next time it could be a Christian fundamentalist
belonging to an international anti-abortion group.
"Such
thoughts were not far from Frank Churchโs mind when he warned, 'I don
โt want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the
capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must
see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this
technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that
we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is
no return.' โ
|
Caroline Fredrickson is the
Director of the Washington Legislative Office of the American Civil
Liberties Union.
From Fredrickson's
Statement:
quote:
"...it
is crucial to remember that this is not an isolated incident. The Bush
administration has a clear record of hostility toward basic
constitutional norms and democratic values. There is a pattern and
practice of abuse, and the NSA scandal must be seen in this context.
"Even a few examples suffice to bring this unfortunate record into
sharp relief.
"The clearest indication
of the
White House's disdain for fundamental American freedoms, aside from the
NSA scandal, has to be the Patriot Act. For more than four years,
reasonable men and women from both sides of the aisle have called on
the White House to accept modest changes to the Patriot Act to better
balance national security and constitutional liberties. The answer has
been a categorical "no."
"In addition, the Pentagon has been spying and maintaining files on
Americans exercising their first amendment rights.
"And so is the FBI. As part of an ACLU FOIA effort in twenty states on
behalf of over 100 domestic political and religious groups, the ACLU
received numerous documents confirming that the FBI's Joint Terrorism
Task Forces are investigating peaceful activists who work on issues
ranging from affirmative action, animal and environmental rights, and
opposition to the Iraq war.
"The White House and
Department
of Defense have used the tragedy of 9/11 to create a legal framework
justifying coercive interrogations and torture as well as to short
circuit judicial review of its actions.
"On the topic of domestic surveillance and privacy rights, this is the
same administration that had retired Rear Admiral John Poindexter
develop the Total Information Awareness data-mining system at the
Pentagon. That program was supposed to track in real time the
electronic footprints of presumably every individual in the United
States."
|
Bruce Fein is a
constitutional lawyer and an international consultant who served as Associate Deputy Attorney General for President Reagan, and is a past General Counsel
of the Federal Communications Commission.
From Fein's Testimony:
quote:
There is
no reason why the President couldn't have come, if
he thought it was necessary, to arrange to have debate
and have an amendment to FISA without revealing all secrets
to the enemy. Indeed, FISA itself recognized the obvious.
Our enemy recognizes that we will use surveillance and
wiretapping to try to collect intelligence. And I don't think
it's plausible to believe that any kind of discussion in
theory that the President has extraordinary powers to surveil
in wartime would permit the enemy to evade any kind of
particular practice.
But,
anyway, the Congress explicitly addressed the idea of
the powers of the President during wartime and
wiretapping.
The authorization of force statute doesn't refer to
FISA.
The administration's claims that it sub silentio
overruled FISA is on its face implausible. The rule of
statutory construction for centuries is, the more specific
statute overrides the more general one.
And I don't
think anything more needs to be said about the fact that he
is violating FISA.
I think it's even more worrisome to understand the claims
he is making of inherent constitutional authority to
undertake any efforts for the purpose of defeating
terrorism, irrespective of congressional action or
otherwise.
For instance, under his interpretation of the
authorization of force, he could suspend the writ of habeas corpus,
which he hasn't done, saying: This authorization enabled
me to do anything in furtherance of the war effort. I can
suspend the writ of habeas corpus unilaterally even though
Congress hasn't done so." ...
[Brief discussion
of Bush's
potential claims to have an inherent right to suspend the writ of
habeus corpus, ignore laws prohibiting torture, to establish
concentration camps, and refuse to obey laws requiring civilian review
tribunals for designated "enemy combatant" such as those held in
Guantanamo Bay.]
"...
He could authorize breaking and entering of homes in order
to secure intelligence to fight the war against
terrorism, despite the fact that there is an authorized
procedure in an amendment to FISA that governs physical searches.
"
Now, the principle that the President has
established here, if gone unchecked, will, as Justice Robert Jackson
said, lie around like a loaded gun and be utilized by any
future incumbent who claims a need.
"
And the history of power
teaches us one thing, that if it's unchecked, it will be
abused.
"
There will be overreaching, whether or not you have
a benevolent individual or someone who's
malevolent. That is the nature of power. As Lord Acton said,
'Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
"And we ought not to risk that when there are absolutely clear,
legal, responsible ways to fight terrorism with all the
aggressiveness that we need."
Bruce
Fein gave a spoken statement, excerpted above, and the committee
released a pdf with
3 of his Washington Times articles on this subject, which I have called
his written Statement.. The excerpts below are from these
articles. The links to article names will take You to the top of
the article. The excerpt begins 3 paragraphs into it.
From Fein's Statement:
From
"...OUTSIDE THE
LAW?"
December 28, 2005,
Washington Times
quote:
Mr.
Bush has adamantly refused to acknowledge any constitutional
limitations on his power to wage war indefinitely against international
terrorism, other than an unelaborated assertion he is not a dictator.
Claims to inherent authority to break and enter homes, to intercept
purely domestic communications, or to herd citizens into concentration
camps reminiscent of World War II, for example, have not been ruled out
if the commander in chief believes the measures would help defeat al
Qaeda or sister terrorist threats.
Volumes
of war powers nonsense have been assembled to defend Mr. Bush's
defiance of the legislative branch and claim of wartime omnipotence so
long as terrorism persists, i.e., in perpetuity. Congress should
undertake a national inquest into his conduct and claims to determine
whether impeachable usurpations are at hand. As Alexander Hamilton
explained in Federalist 65, impeachment lies for "abuse or violation of
some public trust," misbehaviors that "relate chiefly to injuries done
immediately to the society itself."
The
Founding Fathers confined presidential war powers to avoid the
oppressions of kings. Despite championing a muscular and energetic
chief executive, Hamilton in Federalist 69 accepted that the president
must generally bow to congressional directions even in times of war: ...
...President
Bush's claim of inherent authority to flout congressional limitations
in warring against international terrorism thus stumbles on the
original meaning of the commander in chief provision in Article II,
section 2. ...
...Indeed,
no unconstitutional usurpation is saved by longevity. ...
President Bush
preposterously argues the Sept. 14, 2001, congressional resolution
authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations or persons [the president] determines" were implicated in
the September 11 attacks provided legal sanction for the indefinite NSA
eavesdropping outside the aegis of FISA. But the FISA statute expressly
limits emergency surveillances of citizens during wartime to 15 days,
unless the president obtains congressional approval for an extension:
...
A
cardinal canon of statutory interpretation teaches that a specific
statute like FISA trumps a general statute like the congressional war
resolution. Neither the resolution's language nor legislative history
even hints that Congress intended a repeal of FISA. Moreover, the White
House has maintained Congress was not asked for a law authorizing the
NSA eavesdropping because the legislature would have balked, not
because the statute would have duplicated the war resolution.
...[The Supreme Court's invalidation of
President Truman's seizing Steel Mills during the Korean War, in the Youngstown
Sheet & Tube Decision] invalidated a seizure
of private property (with just compensation)[,] a vastly less troublesome
invasion of civil liberties than the NSA's indefinite interception of
international conversations on Mr. Bush's say so alone.
Congress
should insist the president cease the spying unless or until a proper
statute is enacted or face possible impeachment. The Constitution's
separation of powers is too important to be discarded in the name of
expediency.
From Fein's Statement:
From "...UNLIMITED"
December 20, 2005, Washington Times
quote:
President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law.
He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a
decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses.
Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to
obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that
would materially impair individual freedoms.
The war against global terrorism is serious business. The enemy has
placed every American at risk, a tactic that justifies altering the
customary balance between liberty and security. ...
... Mr. Bush insisted in his radio address that the NSA targets only
citizens "with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist
organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government
must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist
organizations."
But there are no checks on NSA errors or abuses, the hallmark of a rule
of law as opposed to a rule of men. Truth and accuracy are the first
casualties of war. President Bush assured the world Iraq possessed
weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion. He was wrong.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared Americans of Japanese ancestry
were security threats to justify interning them in concentration camps
during World War II. He was wrong. President Lyndon Johnson maintained
communists masterminded and funded the massive Vietnam War protests in
the United States. He was wrong. To paraphrase President Ronald
Reagan's remark to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, President Bush can
be trusted in wartime, but only with independent verification.
The NSA eavesdropping is further troublesome because it easily evades
judicial review. Targeted citizens are never informed their
international communications have been intercepted. Unless a criminal
prosecution is forthcoming (which seems unlikely), the citizen has no
forum to test the government's claim the interceptions were triggered
by known links to a terrorist organization. ...
... FISA requires court approval for national security wiretaps, and
makes it a crime for a person to intentionally engage "in electronic
surveillance under color of law, except as authorized by statute." Mr.
Bush cited the disruptions of "terrorist" cells in New York, Oregon,
Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio as evidence of a pronounced
domestic threat that compelled unilateral and secret action. But he
failed to demonstrate those cells could not have been equally
penetrated with customary legislative and judicial checks on executive
overreaching.
|
Kate
Martin is the Director of the Center for National Security Studies and
has testified many times before the House and Senate on issues relating
to homeland security, intelligence, and civil liberties
Kate Martin gave a brief written statement*,
*Editor's Note: Some
paragraphs
have
been split for
presentation
on this page - dcm
From Martin's Statement:
quote:
The President claims he has authority as the Commander-in-Chief to
conduct warrantless wiretaps of Americans.
But when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in
1978, it expressly rejected the Presidentโs claim of inherent authority
to conduct warrantless wiretaps.
It then went further and made it a crime to conduct such wiretaps.
The President has acted contrary to the express will of the Congress.
The Supreme Court has never approved a claim of presidential authority
to authorize acts outlawed by the Congress.
When Congress authorized secret wiretaps for national security
purposes in 1978, it intended to prevent any future President from
carrying out warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. It made its
intention clear in five different sections of the law. ...
... Confronted with this explicit law against warrantless wiretaps, the
administration is now claiming that it had authority from Congress.
But its contention that the congressional resolution for the use of
force following the September 11, attacks authorized its warrantless
surveillance is ludicrous. FISA states that following a declaration of
war by the Congress, the President, acting through the Attorney
General, may institute electronic surveillance without a court order
for no more than fifteen days. (50 USC 1811.)
At best, the September 2001 resolution is the equivalent of a
declaration of war.
At most, therefore, the resolution authorized warrantless surveillance
for fifteen days.
Nothing in the resolution can be read as amending this specific
limitation to allow unlimited warrantless surveillance.
Kate Martin's spoken opening
statement, like Professor Turley's before
her, departed from her submitted written statement. Here's an
excerpt.
From Martin's
Testimony:
quote:
I want to echo
the remarks made by people today about the
abdication of the constitutional responsibility of the House of
Representatives in failing to hold any formal hearings, and such
formal hearings would conduct oversight over this program
and are necessary not only to protect our basic civil
liberties but, in addition, to ensure that the
departments inside the executive branch are, in fact, engaging
in effective counterterrorism activities and not once
again going down the path looking at easy and perhaps
politically unpopular targets while missing those who would actually
do us harm, and that oversight which the House of
Representatives to date has refused to engage in is
necessary for both purposes.
... the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in three different ways
prohibits the President from conducting wiretapping outside of the
four corners of that act and criminal wiretap statutes
... whether or not the
President had inherent authority to conduct
warrantless wiretaps outside of those statutes was
considered during the 2 years in which Congress debated and then
enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and
expressly rejected by the Congress at the time.
The
President's signed the bill, and there was no statement that that
limitation was unconstitutional.
... the question
of whom and when to wiretap on Americans inside the United
States is a matter that the Constitution specifically commits
to more than one branch when, in the Fourth
Amendment, it states that searches and seizures require a warrant,
and that warrant is to be issued by the judiciary branch.
So the claim here of inherent authority is
structurally contradicted by the Constitution itself, which says
that the power to conduct searches and seizures belongs in part
to the judiciary, as well as to the Congress, which here has
set the standards for the judiciary to apply in issuing
warrants.
...we should not forget that it
is not simply a claim that the President has the sole
power to decide which laws to violate and when to go outside
the judicial power, but that he has the power to do so in
secret.
Remember that until the New York Times reviewed
this program, he withheld the fact from the American
people that his view was that FISA did not limit his
powers.
He secretly believed that he had broader
authority than was laid out in the public statutes, but he withheld
and misled the American people about that view of his own
powers. ...
One thing I would urge you to do is to examine what
kind of misleading statements, if not deception, were put
before the Congress in connection with this program.
We were
assured repeatedly that Americans' privacy was safe because
there were checks and balances in place and the
administration was following the law.
We all understood the law to be that which was publicly enacted, when it turned out that
the administration with a wink and a nod has
apparently deemed there to be some kind of secret law and then
misled the American people and the Congress in what that law
and what those authorities were.
Just one final comment on that.
The President has claimed that the secrecy was necessary for national
security reasons
to prevent al Qaeda from knowing that we were
wiretapping them. That claim is absurd on its face, I submit
to you.
From day one, before 9/11, al Qaeda knew that we
were trying to wiretap them, as we should be doing. Al Qaeda
knew that the PATRIOT Act was about amending the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier to wiretap
on al Qaeda.
It makes no difference to al Qaeda whether
or not they're being wiretapped with a warrant or without
a warrant.
[Laughter.]
It makes a difference to the American people
whether or not the President is engaging in wiretaps of
Americans without a warrant, and that, I submit to you, is most
likely the justification for keeping this program secret.
|
The
list so far:
January
20 House Judiciary Democratic Briefing Materials
Here is The
Briefing Transcript .
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsabrieftranscript12006
Here is Bruce
Fein's
Statement.
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/feinstmt12006.html
Here is Jonathan
Turley's Statement
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/turleystmt12006.html
Here is James
Bamford's Statement
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/bamfordstmt12006.html
Here is Richard
Hersh's
Statement
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/hershstmt12006.html
Here is Caroline
Fredrickson's Statement.
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/fredricksonaclustmt12006.html
Here is Kate
Martin's
Statement.
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/martinstmt12006.html
Here is Rep. John
Conyer's Statement.
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/conyersstmt12006.html
Here is Rep.
Maxine
Water's Statement.
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/watersstmt12006.html
Here is Rep. Sheila
Jackson Lee's Statement.
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/jacksonleestmt12006.html
Here is Harvard
Law's Laurence Tribe's Letter to Rep.
Conyers.
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/tribensaconyersltr10606.html
Here is the
Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member Conyer's
20 January
2001 Letter to Telecommunication Carriers.
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/telecomspyingltr12006.html
Here is Reps
Conyers' and Scott's January 6, 2006 Letter to Rep.
Sensenbrenner asking for an investigation into the FBI's
mishandling of the Brandon Mayfield Case.
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/mayfieldmishandlehrgltr1606.html
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH
SERVICE PAPERS:
LAWSUITS:
Pending Litigation
re Warrantless NSA Wiretapping
FOIA
Here is the ACLU'S
Pentagon Spying FOIA February 1, 2006, seeking from the Pentagon
records from Talon,
CIFA,
MX
of infiltration, intimidation, dirty tricks, and spying on Richard Hersh, The Truth Project, Inc.,
Patriots for Peace, Ft. Lauderdale Friends, Melbourne Florida Counter
Inaugural, Broward Anti-War Coalition, Jeff Nall, Maria
Telesca-Whipple, and others.
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/PentagonSpyingFOIA_020106.html
ISSUES BRIEFINGS
Policy
Statements
AMERICAN
BAR ASSOCIATION
Public
Interest Law
OPEN SOCIETY
INSTITUTE
Morton H. Halperin is the Open Society Institute's US Advocacy Director.
CENTER
FOR NATIONAL
SECURITY STUDIES
Kate Martin is the Director of the Center for National Security Studies.
Here
is Kate Martin's and Brittany Benowitz's
David C.
Manchester
ARTICLES
PENDING
INVESTIGATIONS: NONE
WARRANTLESS NSA WIRETAPS
Pending
Investigation of Warrantless NSA Wiretap and Data - Mining
The Senate has no current plans
to fully investigate.
The House has no
current plans to fully
investigate.
MILITARY INTELLIGENCE
INFILTRATION
OF PEACEFUL GROUPS
Pending
Investigation of Civil Infiltration Project codenamed "Talon"
DOWNLOAD
THIS FILESET
They are all in this zip file:
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/012006_HouseDemJudBriefing.zip
(NOTE:
All links are local, and only refer to the filename alone. So You
can download the archive, unzip into any directory, and this page will
still
work when You are not online... Once You download and unzip it into a
specific shared folder, another User on Your local network can
download, or browse, as well -dcm)
|
External Links - Findlaw
|
FindLaw
News Document Archive
Select a Letter: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
or Featured Docs Topic Index
|
National Security Agency (NSA): |
- Complaint (American Civil Liberties Union, et al.
v. National Security Agency, et al.) (PDF) (Jan. 17, 2006)
- Complaint (Center for Constitutional Rights, et al.
v. George W. Bush, et al.) (PDF) (Jan. 17, 2006)
- FindLaw's
Writ
("The Congressional Research Service and Constitutional Law Scholars
Weigh in on President Bush's Authorization of Warrantless Surveillance"
by Elaine Cassel) (Jan. 12, 2006)
- Letter to Congress on NSA Spying (Signed by 14
constitutional law scholars and former government officials) (Jan. 9,
2006)
- FindLaw's
Writ ("George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped
Illegally, and Impeachably" by John W. Dean) (Dec. 30, 2005)
- U.S. Dept. of Justice Letter
(Letter from William Moschella, Asst. Attorney General for Leg. Affairs
to Chairs and Ranking Members of Senate and House Intelligence
Committees) (PDF) (Dec. 22, 2005)
- Press Briefing
(Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden,
Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence) (Dec. 19, 2005)
- President's Radio Address (Discussion of
authorization to NSA to intercept international communications of
people with links to al Qaeda) (Dec. 17, 2005)
- New York Times Article ("Bush Lets U.S. Spy on
Callers Without Courts") (Dec. 16, 2005)
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)
|
|
|