More FISA

14 Sunday Oct 2007

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

Tags

What Kagro X said:

So here’s the key. The domestic spying has always been justified by saying it was a necessary response to 9/11. But clearly there’s damned good reason to believe these programs were conceived and initiated well before the September 11th attacks.

That would mean — gasp! — that your “government” is full of it.

But it’s not just that. If Qwest’s competitors were already abetting this bloodless(?) coup before 9/11, then the “administration’s” domestic spying not only has little if anything to do with response to terrorism, but it also objectively failed to prevent 9/11.

Are you listening, Senator McCaskill?

UPDATE: There’s another option that Kagro X didn’t consider – an allegation that I’m sure right-wing apologists for the administration will be making shortly: Qwest’s refusal to allow warrantless wiretapping caused 9/11.

4 thoughts on “More FISA”

Michael Bersin said:

October 14, 2007 at 6:30 pm

….an allegation that I’m sure right-wing apologists for the administration will be making shortly: Qwest’s refusal to allow warrantless wiretapping caused 9/11….

Except, the present administration had all kinds of information they chose to ignore.

Transcript of Rice’s 9/11 commission statement
….BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president, at any time prior to August 6, of the existence of al Qaeda cells in the United States?
RICE: First, let me just make certain…
BEN-VENISTE: If you could just answer that question, because I only have a very limited…
RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but it’s important…
BEN-VENISTE: Did you tell the president…
RICE: … that I also address…
It’s also important that, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you have raised. So I will do it quickly, but if you’ll just give me a moment.
BEN-VENISTE: Well, my only question to you is whether you…
RICE: I understand, Commissioner, but I will…
BEN-VENISTE: … told the president.
RICE: If you’ll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you’ve asked.
First of all, yes, the August 6 PDB was in response to questions of the president — and that since he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about various aspects of al Qaeda’s operations.
Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum — I remember it as being only a line or two — that there were al Qaeda cells in the United States.
Now, the question is, what did we need to do about that?
And I also understood that that was what the FBI was doing, that the FBI was pursuing these al Qaeda cells. I believe in the August 6 memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations under way of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this; the FBI was pursuing it. I really don’t remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don’t remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.
BEN-VENISTE: Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?
RICE: I believe the title was, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”
Now, the…
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste…
BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the…
RICE: I would like to finish my point here.
BEN-VENISTE: I didn’t know there was a point.
RICE: Given that — you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was.
RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.
BEN-VENISTE: Now, you knew by August 2001 of al Qaeda involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, is that correct? You knew that in 1999, late ’99, in the millennium threat period, that we had thwarted an al Qaeda attempt to blow up Los Angeles International Airport and thwarted cells operating in Brooklyn, New York, and Boston, Massachusetts.
As of the August 6 briefing, you learned that al Qaeda members have resided or traveled to the United States for years and maintained a support system in the United States.
And you learned that FBI information since the 1998 blind sheikh warning of hijackings to free the blind sheikh indicated a pattern of suspicious activity in the country up until August 6 consistent with preparation for hijackings. Isn’t that so?
RICE: Do you have other questions that you want me to answer as a part of the sequence?….

Yeah, dubya’s due diligence was thwarted by those damn Constitution abiding and law quoting telecoms:

….an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush’s Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president’s attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now….”

Loading...

Reply
maryb2004 said:

October 14, 2007 at 9:45 pm

with a good post on the FISA immunity debate. He’s always a must-read and I hope someone in McCaskill’s office bothers to read him.
An excerpt:

There is an equally important structural feature that is likely to be neglected in these debates. It’s not just the illegal surveillance. It’s the secrecy, stupid. The President’s strategy throughout his Administration, but particularly since his approval ratings crashed, has been to try to keep everything his Administration does secret in order to avoid accountability and oversight. Take the state secrets doctrine as one example. This doctrine was invoked sparingly in the last fifty years of the National Security State. The Bush Administration has begun to invoke it routinely, arguing that nothing it does can ever be examined by courts on grounds of national security. Similarly, this Administration has invoked executive privilege early and often to prevent Congressional oversight and investigation.
What does this have to do with immunity for private companies? Simple. The President can use his pardon power to immunize subordinates and private companies from criminal prosecutions. But the pardon power does not allow him to nullify private suits against telephone companies. Moreover, using the pardon power in the midst of the debate on FISA would inflame public opinion and embolden Congress on many other fronts. Instead, the President wants legal assurances that nobody will have incentives to reveal what his subordinates did and what he asked the telecom companies to do. Retroactive immunity helps insure that these issues will never come to light in any court of law. (Recall George H.W. Bush’s pardons of the Iran-Contra conspirators, which effectively ended further judicial inquiries into that national scandal.).
We should understand the recent revelations by a Qwest executive, Joseph Nacchio, who is under prosecution for insider trading violations in this light. Because Nacchio now faces significant penalties, he has every incentive to provide embarrassing information about the White House in the hopes of shoring up his defense. This case involved a telecom company that refused to participate in the NSA program. The White House is understandably concerned that civil suits against corporate officials who did participate will produce even more embarrassing revelations.

And his recommendations:

Congress must build structures of oversight, reporting, and auditing into the new version of FISA, designing them so that if the Administration tries to avoid compliance- as it inevitably will– this becomes easy to spot and easy to publicize. They must also restore the FISA exclusivity provision so that the Administration will have a harder time rearticulating the theory that it may act outside of FISA because of the September 18, 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force. Indeed, Congress should specifically state in the new legislation that nothing in the AUMF authorizes the President to engage in foreign intelligence surveillance that is contrary to the provisions of FISA. And Congress should limit the use of the state secrets privilege in litigation arising out of FISA.

Loading...

Reply
- Clark said:
  
  October 14, 2007 at 7:11 pm
  
  Reply
- maryb2004 said:
  
  October 14, 2007 at 9:46 pm
  
  Reply

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

More FISA

Like this:

4 thoughts on “More FISA”

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Share this:

Like this:

4 thoughts on “More FISA”

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Discover more from Show Me Progress