Chris Matthews annoys me, but the above segment is worth watching. Everything we've learned is, in my opinion, consistent with the theory that Ashcroft and Comey refused to sign off on using the NSA for domestic spying purposes
Check out what Kagro X has to say over at the Next Hurrah. First, this section from the Washington Post's coverage:
In his notes, Mueller recounts Comey's statement that Ashcroft complained to Gonzales and Card at the hospital about being "barred" from obtaining "the advice he needed" about the NSA program because of "strict compartmentalization rules" set by the White House. Although Ashcroft, as attorney general, had been fully briefed about the program, many of his senior legal advisers were not allowed to know about it, officials said.As Kagro X summarizes, "they kept the AG purposefully underinformed, even as they pointed to his "authorization" as proof of legality."
We also learn the the Office of Professional Responsibility, charged with investigating the program, was denied clearance to do so.
Why would Bushco systematically destroy all oversight? To hide a serious violation of the law -- or so I suspect.
Only Congress can get have any hope of learning what NSA was and is up to. I think we have clues -- not proof, but clues -- which would buttress the suggestion that the NSA's "vacuum cleaner" approach was used to scoop up information on Bush's political enemies in an election year.
5 comments:
You know reason left America a while back. I think Al Gore wrote that book right> But when someone is hiding EVERYTHING>> it's pretty safe to bet they are hiding A LOT OF THINGS they just don't want people to know. Why think hidden things could even begin to be legal and ok?
After all the shouting matches and name callings over the FISA bill, this is eye opening:
"...Bush administration officials have already signaled that, in their view, the president retains his constitutional authority to do whatever it takes to protect the country, regardless of any action Congress takes. At a tense meeting last week with lawyers from a range of private groups active in the wiretapping issue, senior Justice Department officials refused to commit the administration to adhering to the limits laid out in the new legislation and left open the possibility that the president could once again use what they have said in other instances is his constitutional authority to act outside the regulations set by Congress.
At the meeting, Bruce Fein, a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, along with other critics of the legislation, pressed Justice Department officials repeatedly for an assurance that the administration considered itself bound by the restrictions imposed by Congress. The Justice Department, led by Ken Wainstein, the assistant attorney general for national security, refused to do so, according to three participants in the meeting. That stance angered Mr. Fein and others. It sent the message, Mr. Fein said in an interview, that the new legislation, though it is already broadly worded, "is just advisory. The president can still do whatever he wants to do. They have not changed their position that the president's Article II powers trump any ability by Congress to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence."
I still think that impeachment is the only way to reverse this trend, but it looks like the passage of the bill by the House and Senate was a move to protect the Dems backside while on vacation (a good political move) than any meaningful correction of the original FISA law. If Bush isn't going to heed the law, it doesn't make any difference what the law says. I just heard Rove say that the Dems are to blame for the unpopularity of Bush because some Dems have questioned his legitimacy as President! Rove has already started the attack machine. The 08 election is going to be a nasty one and the Dems can't afford any false guilt.
"Bush administration officials have already signaled that, in their view, the president retains his constitutional authority to do whatever it takes to protect the country, regardless of any action Congress takes."
I know I'm really not the first one to expose this theory, but it starts to look too much like what happened with Hitler in Germany.
They invented a fake danger, the communist revolution with thousands of "sleeper cells" hidden everywhere ready to destroy Germany and give it to the evil bolchevik. So they had to give Hitler all the power in order to be able to protect the homeland. They also had show trial (I can imagine that a fingerprint on an application form to the Communist party was enough to convict you). These darn communists were dangerous, they even tried to burn down the Reichstag !
I can't stomach that some Americans really believe that muslim extremist are really trying to take over the US and that if you're not fighting them over there or if Bush doesn't have dictatorial powers to protect the homeland, the evil muslim would take over the US.
Hyperman,
That is exactly what is being sold to Americans directly or indirectly.
"08.18.07 -- 10:33PM // link
The Burka
From TPM Reader DC ...
Re 'You're going to look super in a burka': I think this makes sense mainly if you consider that unilateralism is in many ways the flip side of isolationism. To an awful lot of people in places like, say, West Texas [I once lived there], the outside world is seen as a vague, threatening place, full of people who want what we've got. First it was the Nazis, then the Communists, and now the Islamists; they all blur into a single, malignant Other, who need to be stopped well short of our shores [Throw in the Trilateral Commission and the international bankers for good measure]. I recall teaching history in WTX and having to explain to a student that Nazis and Communists weren't the same people; he actually thought they were, and he was a smart guy! And Bush, despite his gestures of tolerance toward the American Islamic community, plays to this sentiment, with his "They hate our freedom" line and the threat that if we leave Iraq "They'll follow us home." To a lot of people, that doesn't mean acts of terror; that means *conquest.* It's perfectly understandable, actually; people typically interpret new problems in terms of what they've long understood already, and in terms set by the larger understandings of their communities. And this is a huge, diverse country--a fact persistently obscured by the sameness with which we experience it from the air or on the interstate. But precisely because this sort of reflexive defensive posture makes sense in a certain epistemological universe, it's extremely difficult to deal with if you're from a different one."
"Bush administration officials have already signaled that, in their view, the president retains his constitutional authority to do whatever it takes to protect the country, regardless of any action Congress takes."
Actually, this theory lay at the heart of my massive back and forth with Anonymous Liberal over on Crooks and Liars. AnonLib actually think that the idea has some merit -- that is, the BushCo interpretation of Article II may be correct.
I plan to write about this at some length, perhaps tomorrow. But I'm not sure how to approach it. Everyone will see the matter purely in terms of the standard arguments over the FISA update. But this is completely different, and it goes way beyond FISA.
Basically, Bush believes that Congress cannot regulate executive branch behavior. Not just on FISA: On everything. Anon Lib says that when a law states 'the Attorney General MAY collect foreign intelligence IF the following conditions are met..." (and this is the FISA formulation), Bush is still free to do what he likes. Because the law did not stipulate "If and ONLY if..."
I'm not kidding!
I'll have more on this soon. For now, suffice it to say that I find this argument absolutely mad.
Which won't stop Bush from making it.
Post a Comment