Jarring, scary, extremely well-written and insightful. The fact that our freedoms depend on the media will prevent me from sleeping well.
11:25 AM
Anonymous said...
Well, fwiw, George Will -- hardly a lefty moonbat -- doesn't seem very cowed and the columnist is asking Why didn't He Ask Congress? Among other things, Will calls for the declassification of any legal briefs on which Bush has relied in claiming to have the power to conduct warrantless surveillance on U.S. citizens, and for a debate of same.
Will also points out that conservatives who passively accept Bush's actions are not being true to their historical principles: Because of what Alexander Hamilton praised as "energy in the executive," which often drives the growth of government, for years many conservatives were advocates of congressional supremacy. There were, they said, reasons why the Founders, having waged a revolutionary war against overbearing executive power, gave the legislative branch pride of place in Article I of the Constitution...But conservatives' wholesome wariness of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the past 10 elections.
It is absurd to argue that what the NYT reported gives a heads up to AQ or domestic jihadists. Certainly such enclaves realize the U.S. govt is looking for and at them, and I don't see how the news about procedural issues, i.e., that some of this is occurring without warrants, assists them in their nefarious goals.
11:48 AM
Anonymous said...
Glenn, with all the great work you have been doing on this issue, this post if your best effort yet. I wish every member of the media would read this.
Well, fwiw, George Will -- hardly a lefty moonbat -- doesn't seem very cowed . . .
True, Will's column criticized the Administration here, and that's a good thing, but Will's column was pure opinion.
The real work needed here is investigative journalism - finding out what the Administration did, to whom, etc. Since the Administration isn't going to be disclosing any of that - why would they? - they only way for this information to come to light is for people who do have access to the information to leak it to the press and for the press to then publish it.
That is exactly the process the White House is trying to crush with threats of imprisonment and talk of helping Al Qaeda. They want to use the prospect of criminal prosecutions and talk of treason to scare everyone away from disclosing what they did here.
excuse me Glenn There was this little thing calls September 11th 2001 where our Pentagon was hit by a plane and two of the tallest buildings in the world were brought down by two other planes killing over 3,000 people.
The people who organized and committed those attacks would have killed 50,000 or 50 million if they could have.
I do not think it is possible to exagerate the thread these people pose.
and Tracy Scoggins says:
"Jarring, scary, extremely well-written and insightful. The fact that our freedoms depend on the media will prevent me from sleeping well."
Unless you are cooperating with Al Qaeda Tracy your freedoms are just fine.
Are any of you arguing that these wire taps should not have happened?
See my layman's understanding of what happened and what should have happened here:
Glenn, this is a very tough one: the information is highly classified, so leaking it obviously is a crime.
I don't know what the right answer here is, but it makes me nervous to think that would-be whistleblowers would take it upon themselves to decide something is illegal and so they have the moral authority to leak classified data. (If there were warrants for those surveilled, the project might be wholly justified and very valuable in having prevented further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.) It seems to me the better route would be for the Democrats, and Repubs like Lindsey Graham, to insist on a congressional investigation, some of it possibly in camera.
12:24 PM
Anonymous said...
I agree with Hypatia. An investigation is clearly needed, but it seems it will have to be in camera. But an investigation that is not transparent, and for which the conclusion will be the only item available to the public, will do little to allay the public concern about an abuse of executive power.
I do not think it is possible to exagerate the thread these people pose.
We've faced severe external threats before to our country without dismantling the principles of our republic and the rule of law.
Are any of you arguing that these wire taps should not have happened?
Everybody wants the Government to eavesdrop on Al Qaeda and other suspected terrorists. The issue is that the Government should do so in compliance with the law, not in violation of it.
Glenn, this is a very tough one: the information is highly classified, so leaking it obviously is a crime.
I'm not so sure that's obvious. If the Government classifies information with the intent to conceal its criminality rather than to protect national security, I think it's incumbent upon whoever knows that to disclose it. Had they not done so here, there would be no opportunity to investigate or anything else because this illegality would have remained hidden.
And the fact that this disclosure, as you yourself pointed out, could not possibly harm national security makes clear just how frivolous the threat is.
12:35 PM
Anonymous said...
Ugly american declares: Unless you are cooperating with Al Qaeda Tracy your freedoms are just fine.
That kind of argument really is both wrong and unAmerican. Should the FBI be able to monitor everyone's phone, email and mail, and enter their homes at will, with no warrants, on the theory that only those guilty of some crime have anything to worry about?
There is a reason the Founders gave us a 4th Amendment, in spite of the fact that the innocent have "nothing to worry about." They rightly feared unchecked govt -- and Executive -- power that leads to tyranny and a police state.
12:39 PM
Anonymous said...
Glenn says: And the fact that this disclosure, as you yourself pointed out, could not possibly harm national security makes clear just how frivolous the threat is.
The disclosures thus far pertain simply to procedure, and it is that which cannot reasonably be said to aid AQ. But the who and how, or the substance of what was learned, which may have been justly obtained if undertaken with warrants and have given valuable intel, might very well need to be classified. We don't know, and that is not a frivolous concern.
12:47 PM
Anonymous said...
Unless you are cooperating with Al Qaeda Tracy your freedoms are just fine.
Uncle Joe (the Man of Steel) couldn't have put it better himself.
But the who and how, or the substance of what was learned, which may have been justly obtained if undertaken with warrants and have given valuable intel, might very well need to be classified. We don't know, and that is not a frivolous concern.
Newspapers are extremely cautious - I would say too cautious - about avoiding any disclosures which could even potentially result in real harm to national security.
After all, the NY Times sat on this story for a year on this basis, and even now has disclosed only the most innocuous information, withholding all kinds of operational details which could result in harmful disclosure.
I just don't trust the Government to decide on its own what should be disclosed and what shouldn't be.
Wait now that you have called me or at the least my argument unAmerican?
No I do not think the FBI or any other police agency should conduct warrentless searches or surveilance in criminal matters.
Which seems to be where you and Glenn are missing the point entirely. This is not a criminal matter. This is a war for the survival of our nation and modern civilization. The stakes could not be higher.
and by the way Glenn when our country has been faced with similar threats in the past (the Civil War, WW2,and the cold war)
Civil rights were suspended and violated and apologies offered after the fact.
Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus and charging leakers with Sedition.
Our special opps guys capture a terrorist in Afghanistan or Iraq. Joe citizen here in the U.S. Shows up on that terrorists incoming or outgoing calls. That guy is then monitored.
Not the government deciding to tap your phone for attending a protest march.
Not the government deciding to tap your phone for attending a protest march.
Do we agree this is what we are talking about?
How do you know this? The only way to know is to have judicial oversight to make sure there is no abuse. That's why it's so crucial to only allow surveillance only with a warrant.
Why do you object to having the Administration just comply with the law if it wants to engage in this eavesdropping?
3:32 PM
Anonymous said...
Hewitt is now ridiculing Jay Rockefeller for having sent a handwritten letter (which Hewitt posts) to Dick Cheney on 7/03 expressing "profound concerns" about the lack of oversight in the NSA program. Hewitt dismisses Rockefeller as a "Uriah Heep"
4:02 PM
Anonymous said...
oops, that anon was me.
4:03 PM
Anonymous said...
TUA, there are so many things to fear. Why pick terrorism? Why not tackle the issue rationally, with money and appropriate threats, and yes, even appropriate action. Not including invading Iraq - what was not a terrorist threat at all, then or now.
When I read you, it is almost as if I am reading someone with a emotionall illness, someone who will trade away rights for an ephemeral sense of "security". There is no security in this world, in this life. No president can give it to you, no God can give it to you. You are at risk of your life ALWAYS. And terrorism is the least of your worries, not if you travel in a car much at all or live in a big city, or live in almost any third world country.
You may die a violent death, TUA, but it won't be a terrorist that kills you. Odds are, it will be someone you know.
Trading away freedom for security is a fool's gamble. Eventually you will have neither.
Not the government deciding to tap your phone for attending a protest march.
Do we agree this is what we are talking about?
No, this is about another - egregious - example of the rampant abuse of authority and power and a willingness to deny and defile the very substance of the laws that the American Revolutionaries fought for, with a deceitful and pernicious intent.
Nice work here. What I am wondering is how hard would it have been to ammend FISA to include groups defined by 1801(a)(4) (international terrorists) into the group of folks covered under warrantless surveillance? Would that not have made this legal, presuming some demonstrable link to international terrorists via a captured cell phone or similar intel?
On another note, I don't think W realizes the path he's on with the aggrandizement of executive power. `Course I been wrong before...
10:09 PM
Anonymous said...
I thought the purpose of the media was to convey information with regard to news and entertainment otherwise.
It is an example of what's been wrong with the media for the last 40 years to state its function is to be adverse to government. Its function is not to be adverse to government. Its function is to convey truthful and accurate unbiased information, whether it is good or bad for the government.
Sadly almost all media outlets fail at this task miserable, but not because they fail to do everything they possibly can to subvert the electoral process against republicans, conservatives, and George Bush in particular.
We are talking about the same media that created obviously false documents to gin up some outright lies about President Bush in a blatant attempt to illegally and unethically subvert the democratic process in the best traditions of every dirty politician that has ever lived. Its not Kennedy the media and left emulate these days, its Nixon and Huey Long. They have become that which they profess to hate.
I for one will be very happy to see some NYSlimes reporters frog marched to prison for contempt of court for failing to reveal the names and notes on their sources for the illegal acts of leaking this highly sensitive classified operation at a time of war.
President Lincoln had jailed for sedition some members of congress and/or media types for doing less than many democrat politicians and media types have been doing to sabotage our war effort.
The left has set the standard on illegal leaks of confidential information with the Plame case. Now its time to frog march some more reporters and some traitors within and without the government. I will be loudly cheering when that day comes.
Bush's actions are completely legal for many reasons, which have been documented here in other comments by me, and are documented by others on Professor Bainbridge and other law professor sites. The only illegal or treasonous activity is on the part of the traitors who did the leaking and the Slimes who printed it solely to improperly influence political matters and to serve their own personal greed and avarice with a follow-on book deal. They are scum.
If GWB is guilty, then Rockefeller has just given proof of his complicity. If he cared about the safety of the country, or protecting civil liberties he would have told the Whitehouse to change their ways or he was going public a year ago.
Instead he chose to play politics.
Not to mention you want to hold the President accountable for what many argue was not a crime yet you wish to give a pass to whoever leaked this story who obviously committed one.
All I am asking is that you be intellectually honest.
I think you are better than this.
Please come back off the ledge bud.
10:44 PM
Anonymous said...
Gary, the courts will settle the release of so called sensitive information. Frankly, it looks to me like there is no official secret other than Bush's desire to not have his crimes exposed.
You are so on the wrong side of this one. No one I have read or heard, including Gonzales et all, have made a case for any damage done, protential or actual, or for any reason to call the wiretaps secret. All crime bosses want to keep their work secret. I don't think it's a crime to expose the criminal in the administration.
If you can't find your way to a saner view of this act of the Pres, Gary, get ready for a bumpy ride.
Jake
10:52 PM
Anonymous said...
TUA, apparently these so called briefings given to Rockefeller at al were not actually "full" briefings - as in the details and scope of what was done were not provided.
No, once again, the Pres is on his own and he gets no pass because he "told" the Democrats what he was doing.
A high-ranking intelligence official with firsthand knowledge said in an interview yesterday that Vice President Cheney, then-Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet and Michael V. Hayden, then a lieutenant general and director of the National Security Agency, briefed four key members of Congress about the NSA's new domestic surveillance on Oct. 25, 2001, and Nov. 14, 2001, shortly after Bush signed a highly classified directive that eliminated some restrictions on eavesdropping against U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
The high-ranking intelligence official, who spoke with White House permission but said he was not authorized to be identified by name, said Graham is "misremembering the briefings," which in fact were "very, very comprehensive." The official declined to describe any of the substance of the meetings, but said they were intended "to make sure the Hill knows this program in its entirety, in order to never, ever be faced with the circumstance that someone says, 'I was briefed on this but I had no idea that -- ' and you can fill in the rest."
By Graham's account, the official said, "it appears that we held a briefing to say that nothing is different . . . . Why would we have a meeting in the vice president's office to talk about a change and then tell the members of Congress there is no change?"
Comon Jake you can't have your cake and eat it too. Graham and Rockefeller knew and did nothing.
12:21 AM
Anonymous said...
The high-ranking intelligence official, who spoke with White House permission but said he was not authorized to be identified by name,
LOL! An official "anonymous" source. Like the American public hasn't been burned enough by such sources. Really, I'd take the word of two senators over the word of the above quoted "high-ranking intelligence official" anyday.
But even if its true that Graham and Rockefeller sat on their hands, that doesn't absolve Bush. It just makes Graham and Rockefeller culpable, and they should be voted out when their re-election bids come up.
12:52 AM
Anonymous said...
Time to take our country back.
The George W Bush 2000 Stolen Election commemorative gold coin magnet.
Show Republicans your opposition to the illegitimate Bush regime.
Get them here.
http://www.cafepress.com/revolution09.40907793
http://www.cafepress.com/revolution09
Whenever you write to a Representative or Senator include this text.
Add the following text below to your letter or petition. This will tell the senators and representatives that you will use the power of your purchases to leverage the legislation or action you want done.
We demand that you get the Republican Party to hold a press conference and accede to these demands. Until such a press conference happens and the legislation gets passed we will boycott products from Republican contributors Walmart, Wendy’s, Outback Steak House, Dominos Pizza, Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Eckerd, CVS and Walgreens, Curves for women health clubs, GE and Exxon/Mobil.
1:58 AM
Anonymous said...
Well this is gonna leave a mark all over left wing blogdom and UFO's everywhere:
> Read 'em and weep boys: I wonder how Carl Levin, Russ Feingold, and Barbara > Boxer are going to explain this to the American People. > > Next on Drudge. Monkeys spotted flying out of the Ass of Harry Reid. Film > at 11:00!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL > > From Drudge: > > > CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER > > CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER > > Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do > searches without court approval > > Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve > physical searches, without a court order" > > Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is > authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign > intelligence information without a court order." > > WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. > citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department > official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find > information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use > classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to > observe people inside their homes, without a court order." > > Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration > believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless > searches for foreign intelligence purposes." > > Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and > October 1993, both without a federal warrant. > >
So 9/11 Commissioner and Clinton Deputy Attorney General, Jamie (the WAll) Gorelick says the president has inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance and even warrantless physical searches of premises.
Fair enough, but you omit the fact that Clinton's people argued to congress that the President has "inherent constitutional authority" that isn't defined by these statutes. Just like the current President's advisor say.
Next your quote points out the problem for Bush and why he had to exercise his inherent constitutional authority. Read the part below you quoted where the attorney general has to certify that no US Person will be surveilled. Then tell me how the attorney general could make such a certification when all they have that needs to be quickly and instantly acted upon is a list of phone numbers some which might be cell phones with foreign numbers but operating out of the US or US telephone numbers which may or may not have US Persons at the other end.
Then explain to me how if that's all the info you have how you convince a judge that you have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by the person at the other end of the phone number when that's all you have. Even terrorists have to call their turbin makers, tailors, and order out for pizza now and then. FISA requires a criminal law, full probable cause approach, when a US Person might be involved and is wholly inadequate for protecting this country.
FISA exists because the left has never stopped viewing the world through the prism of a bunch of unwashed hippies looking at Nixon, Johnson, and Vietnam. This so colors their thinking they are unfit to lead or even have input on these matters, and their lack of nuance is shown in how they are unable to even discuss these matters without saying if we don't maintain an Al Qaeda bill of rights then the sky is falling and we are all suffering from KGB and Hitler type control and surveillance.
Gary (now who's drinkng Kool-Aid)
2:57 PM
Anonymous said...
Gary writes: FISA exists because the left has never stopped viewing the world through the prism of a bunch of unwashed hippies looking at Nixon, Johnson, and Vietnam. This so colors their thinking they are unfit to lead or even have input on these matters, and their lack of nuance is shown in how they are unable to even discuss these matters without saying if we don't maintain an Al Qaeda bill of rights then the sky is falling and we are all suffering from KGB and Hitler type control and surveillance.
I am not and never have been either a hippie nor a left-winger. FISA was a congressional attempt to settle the thorny constitutional questions of Executive power vis-a-vis national security. It is the law. Bush violated that law.
If Clinon did so as well, that would not surprise me. It doesn't matter who is in the oval office or what party they come from, they all want Executive power to be unfettered and resist defering to Congress.
And I don't hear any serious voices claiming that Hitlerian nightmares are nigh; but Glenn, and Russ Feingold, are speaking about the President as King. That seems choice rhetoric, given why the Founders gave us the 4th Am in the first place.
3:47 PM
Unless the media finally does its job of aggressively making the public aware of what is really going on with this lawless surveillance scandal -- of how patently dishonest the Administration is being in its explanations -- this scandal will die a quick and inconsequential death, drained of life by the now routine appeals to national security, scare-mongering over Al Qaeda, and the deliberate clouding of extremely clear issues with twisted legalisms. The Administration’s facially false defenses are designed to make people become bored, confused, and of the belief that this is just another partisan lawyer fight in Washington which they can’t decipher and don’t really need to try.
One can’t blame them for adopting this tactic because it has worked so well for them so many times. And there is one principal reason why it has worked – because our passive, frightened, corrupted media has allowed it to work.
All of the protests and shrieking and Congressional investigations over this scandal will be for naught if the media continues to be plagued by the disease of passively conveying Government lies under the guise of journalistic balance. The media is intended to be an adversary to the Government. Its function is to express scepticism over Government claims and to expose dishonesty and corruption among our nation’s highest officials. Only the media can do this, and if it shies away from this function, our system of Government simply will no longer work.
The dangers arising from media abdication of its duties are particularly acute where, as here, one party controls all three branches of the Federal Government and there are no other options for an adversarial force to serve as a counterweight to the Government. The reason that George Bush is so cavalier about spewing nonsensical rationales to justify his lawless conduct is because the media has decided that its role is to uncritically and "objectively" convey -- rather than scrutinize and investigate -- the Government’s positions. But providing a forum for Governmental statements was never the intended role of the media. Instead, it was to serve as an opposition force to the Government. As long-time Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts recently noted:
As Thomas Jefferson put it: "I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter." Jefferson knew that a free and adversarial press was the people's best defense against the excesses of their government and a fundamental building block of healthy democracy. The prospect of having to rely on the media to stand up to the Bush Administration’s lawlessness when it has failed so miserably and for so long to fulfill its central function is not encouraging, to put it mildly. But there is no other choice. And the Administration realizes this – that if it can keep the media in check, it can operate free of constraints and can literally do whatever it wants. Again, according to Jefferson: "Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is freedom of the press. It is therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions." Can there be any doubt that the Administration is engaged in a blatant intimidation campaign against anyone who stands up to it and exposes its wrongdoing? The President and his aides have taken every occasion to attack and threaten those responsible for exposure of this lawless behavior, and the media is quite aware of these threats. Yesterday, in his Press Conference, Bush basically accused whoever finally spoke out about this lawless surveillance on American citizens of committing treason:
There is a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward. My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy. . . .
You've got to understand -- and I hope the American people understand -- there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they're very dangerous. And the discussion about how we try to find them will enable them to adjust. . . . But it is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly. As a result, one can almost hear the fear of the defensive New York Times reporters as they describe these White House threats:
Mr. Bush strongly hinted that the government was beginning a leak investigation into how the existence of the program was disclosed. It was first revealed in an article published on The New York Times Web site on Thursday night, though some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists had been omitted. And surely the media is well aware of the accusations by Bush's closest political allies that the Times aided terrorists against the U.S. by disclosing the Administration's illegal eavesdropping, nicely supplemented by calls from Bush's supporters to hunt down those responsible for these disclosures and prosecute them as traitors.
Threats against the media of this sort are really threats on every American citizen, on every liberty that we have, beginning with the right to know what our Government is doing, to hear unfettered criticism of it, and to have its corruption brought to light. This is thuggish behavior of the worst and most transparent sort – designed to stifle dissent and to punish those who expose corruption and illegality on the part of the Administration.
And the threats have worked. The Times was aware of the Administration’s behavior for a full year but kept its mouth shut because the Administration told it to, despite there being no conceivable harm to national security from its disclosure. We learned yesterday that when the President learned that the Times was finally going to share its discovery with the public, the President "summoned" the Publisher and Editor of the paper to the Oval Office to insist that they not do so -- something which the Times was too afraid to tell us about, and so we had to learn about it from Newsweek instead.
And there is still substantial information about this surveillance which has not been disclosed. Who has been eavesdropped on? How many American citizens were subjected to this surveillance without a warrant? Who decided which Americans would be eavesdropped on and what standards were used to make that determination? And what is the real reason the Administration decided that it could not engage in this surveillance within the incredibly flexible and permissive parameters of FISA?
The only real question is whether the media and Americans generally are going to continue to stand by, passively and afraid, and blindly trust the Administration’s assurances that it is breaking the law for our own good. The most significant and revealing statement from President Bush’s Press Conference yesterday was the one he snidely issued in response to the question of why he saw a need to operate outside of FISA when eavesdropping on American citizens. He refused to answer the question and said this:
And without revealing the operating details of our program, I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and, three, we're guarding your civil liberties. And we're guarding the civil liberties by monitoring the program on a regular basis, by having the folks at NSA, the legal team, as well as the inspector general, monitor the program, and we're briefing Congress.
This is a part of our effort to protect the American people. The American people expect us to protect them and protect their civil liberties. I'm going to do that. That's my job, and I'm going to continue doing my job.
The President is telling us that we should not question what he is doing because he has assured us that he is not doing anything wrong and that is all we need to know. These assurances do indeed lead many of his followers to insist that this is proof that he is acting properly. But this is the assurance of a Big Brother that he knows what is best for us, not a substantive response of an elected official who seems himself as accountable to anyone. It is also a warning that we must not question him, but simply trust him, as he secretly goes about breaking the law while he assures us that there is nothing to worry about.
This illegal eavesdropping is not, of course, an isolated incident. It is but a small manifestation of the Administration’s broader view that the President has the power -- by virtue of this indefinite, undeclared, increasingly vague "war" – to unilaterally determine what the Government can and should do without any checks or balances at all. That is the definition of tyranny, and that is what this Administration is expressly trying to achieve.
Each time the Administration gets away with acquiring power of this sort, they become more emboldened in this project and then further escalate their assault on the notion of an Executive constrained by the rule of law. This time, the President has been caught red-handed, with his hand in the jar of unchecked Executive power, and he has boldly decided that he will simply admit what he has done and dare anyone to do anything about it.
He gave a speech in which he proudly declared what he did and defiantly vowed to continue, and yesterday, he could not have been any more jocular or patronizing with the media as they questioned him about these matters. One can’t really blame him for taking that carefree attitude, given that the only force capable of stopping him – our nation’s media – has never done a single thing during his entire Administration to indicate that they can or will do anything meaningful at all.
But if they don’t -- if the media does not radically and rapidly change the way it operates and how it sees its function as a result of this scandal -- it is not hyperbole to say that many of the most basic and long-standing principles of our republic will be undermined, perhaps irrevocably. The Administration is now alternatively rubbing the media’s face in this scandal and threatening them with criminal investigations and imprisonment if they don’t fall into line. The moment of truth for the media has arrived, and one cannot exactly be confident in the prospect that they will rise to this challenge.
posted by Glenn Greenwald at 10:50 AM on Dec 20, 2005
"White House efforts to intimidate and threaten the press"
31 Comments -
Jarring, scary, extremely well-written and insightful. The fact that our freedoms depend on the media will prevent me from sleeping well.
11:25 AM
Well, fwiw, George Will -- hardly a lefty moonbat -- doesn't seem very cowed and the columnist is asking Why didn't He Ask Congress? Among other things, Will calls for the declassification of any legal briefs on which Bush has relied in claiming to have the power to conduct warrantless surveillance on U.S. citizens, and for a debate of same.
Will also points out that conservatives who passively accept Bush's actions are not being true to their historical principles:
Because of what Alexander Hamilton praised as "energy in the executive," which often drives the growth of government, for years many conservatives were advocates of congressional supremacy. There were, they said, reasons why the Founders, having waged a revolutionary war against overbearing executive power, gave the legislative branch pride of place in Article I of the Constitution...But conservatives' wholesome wariness of presidential power has been a casualty of conservative presidents winning seven of the past 10 elections.
It is absurd to argue that what the NYT reported gives a heads up to AQ or domestic jihadists. Certainly such enclaves realize the U.S. govt is looking for and at them, and I don't see how the news about procedural issues, i.e., that some of this is occurring without warrants, assists them in their nefarious goals.
11:48 AM
Glenn, with all the great work you have been doing on this issue, this post if your best effort yet. I wish every member of the media would read this.
12:01 PM
Well, fwiw, George Will -- hardly a lefty moonbat -- doesn't seem very cowed . . .
True, Will's column criticized the Administration here, and that's a good thing, but Will's column was pure opinion.
The real work needed here is investigative journalism - finding out what the Administration did, to whom, etc. Since the Administration isn't going to be disclosing any of that - why would they? - they only way for this information to come to light is for people who do have access to the information to leak it to the press and for the press to then publish it.
That is exactly the process the White House is trying to crush with threats of imprisonment and talk of helping Al Qaeda. They want to use the prospect of criminal prosecutions and talk of treason to scare everyone away from disclosing what they did here.
12:05 PM
Glenn says:
"scare-mongering over Al Qaeda"
excuse me Glenn There was this little thing calls September 11th 2001 where our Pentagon was hit by a plane and two of the tallest buildings in the world were brought down by two other planes killing over 3,000 people.
The people who organized and committed those attacks would have killed 50,000 or 50 million if they could have.
I do not think it is possible to exagerate the thread these people pose.
and Tracy Scoggins says:
"Jarring, scary, extremely well-written and insightful. The fact that our freedoms depend on the media will prevent me from sleeping well."
Unless you are cooperating with Al Qaeda Tracy your freedoms are just fine.
Are any of you arguing that these wire taps should not have happened?
See my layman's understanding of what happened and what should have happened here:
http://therealuglyamerican.blogspot.com/2005/12/nsa-story-laymans-perspective.html
12:23 PM
Glenn, this is a very tough one: the information is highly classified, so leaking it obviously is a crime.
I don't know what the right answer here is, but it makes me nervous to think that would-be whistleblowers would take it upon themselves to decide something is illegal and so they have the moral authority to leak classified data. (If there were warrants for those surveilled, the project might be wholly justified and very valuable in having prevented further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.) It seems to me the better route would be for the Democrats, and Repubs like Lindsey Graham, to insist on a congressional investigation, some of it possibly in camera.
12:24 PM
I agree with Hypatia. An investigation is clearly needed, but it seems it will have to be in camera. But an investigation that is not transparent, and for which the conclusion will be the only item available to the public, will do little to allay the public concern about an abuse of executive power.
12:34 PM
I do not think it is possible to exagerate the thread these people pose.
We've faced severe external threats before to our country without dismantling the principles of our republic and the rule of law.
Are any of you arguing that these wire taps should not have happened?
Everybody wants the Government to eavesdrop on Al Qaeda and other suspected terrorists. The issue is that the Government should do so in compliance with the law, not in violation of it.
Glenn, this is a very tough one: the information is highly classified, so leaking it obviously is a crime.
I'm not so sure that's obvious. If the Government classifies information with the intent to conceal its criminality rather than to protect national security, I think it's incumbent upon whoever knows that to disclose it. Had they not done so here, there would be no opportunity to investigate or anything else because this illegality would have remained hidden.
And the fact that this disclosure, as you yourself pointed out, could not possibly harm national security makes clear just how frivolous the threat is.
12:35 PM
Ugly american declares: Unless you are cooperating with Al Qaeda Tracy your freedoms are just fine.
That kind of argument really is both wrong and unAmerican. Should the FBI be able to monitor everyone's phone, email and mail, and enter their homes at will, with no warrants, on the theory that only those guilty of some crime have anything to worry about?
There is a reason the Founders gave us a 4th Amendment, in spite of the fact that the innocent have "nothing to worry about." They rightly feared unchecked govt -- and Executive -- power that leads to tyranny and a police state.
12:39 PM
Glenn says: And the fact that this disclosure, as you yourself pointed out, could not possibly harm national security makes clear just how frivolous the threat is.
The disclosures thus far pertain simply to procedure, and it is that which cannot reasonably be said to aid AQ. But the who and how, or the substance of what was learned, which may have been justly obtained if undertaken with warrants and have given valuable intel, might very well need to be classified. We don't know, and that is not a frivolous concern.
12:47 PM
Unless you are cooperating with Al Qaeda Tracy your freedoms are just fine.
Uncle Joe (the Man of Steel) couldn't have put it better himself.
2:48 PM
But the who and how, or the substance of what was learned, which may have been justly obtained if undertaken with warrants and have given valuable intel, might very well need to be classified. We don't know, and that is not a frivolous concern.
Newspapers are extremely cautious - I would say too cautious - about avoiding any disclosures which could even potentially result in real harm to national security.
After all, the NY Times sat on this story for a year on this basis, and even now has disclosed only the most innocuous information, withholding all kinds of operational details which could result in harmful disclosure.
I just don't trust the Government to decide on its own what should be disclosed and what shouldn't be.
3:04 PM
Wait now that you have called me or at the least my argument unAmerican?
No I do not think the FBI or any other police agency should conduct warrentless searches or surveilance in criminal matters.
Which seems to be where you and Glenn are missing the point entirely. This is not a criminal matter. This is a war for the survival of our nation and modern civilization. The stakes could not be higher.
and by the way Glenn when our country has been faced with similar threats in the past (the Civil War, WW2,and the cold war)
Civil rights were suspended and violated and apologies offered after the fact.
Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus and charging leakers with Sedition.
Japenese Internment camps, etc.
To me this falls far short of those measures.
3:07 PM
btw you guys do understand how this works right?
Our special opps guys capture a terrorist in Afghanistan or Iraq. Joe citizen here in the U.S. Shows up on that terrorists incoming or outgoing calls. That guy is then monitored.
Not the government deciding to tap your phone for attending a protest march.
Do we agree this is what we are talking about?
3:10 PM
Not the government deciding to tap your phone for attending a protest march.
Do we agree this is what we are talking about?
How do you know this? The only way to know is to have judicial oversight to make sure there is no abuse. That's why it's so crucial to only allow surveillance only with a warrant.
Why do you object to having the Administration just comply with the law if it wants to engage in this eavesdropping?
3:32 PM
Hewitt is now ridiculing Jay Rockefeller for having sent a handwritten letter (which Hewitt posts) to Dick Cheney on 7/03 expressing "profound concerns" about the lack of oversight in the NSA program. Hewitt dismisses Rockefeller as a "Uriah Heep"
4:02 PM
oops, that anon was me.
4:03 PM
TUA, there are so many things to fear. Why pick terrorism? Why not tackle the issue rationally, with money and appropriate threats, and yes, even appropriate action. Not including invading Iraq - what was not a terrorist threat at all, then or now.
When I read you, it is almost as if I am reading someone with a emotionall illness, someone who will trade away rights for an ephemeral sense of "security". There is no security in this world, in this life. No president can give it to you, no God can give it to you. You are at risk of your life ALWAYS. And terrorism is the least of your worries, not if you travel in a car much at all or live in a big city, or live in almost any third world country.
You may die a violent death, TUA, but it won't be a terrorist that kills you. Odds are, it will be someone you know.
Trading away freedom for security is a fool's gamble. Eventually you will have neither.
Jake
4:41 PM
Not the government deciding to tap your phone for attending a protest march.
Do we agree this is what we are talking about?
No, this is about another - egregious - example of the rampant abuse of authority and power and a willingness to deny and defile the very substance of the laws that the American Revolutionaries fought for, with a deceitful and pernicious intent.
5:06 PM
Glenn,
Nice work here. What I am wondering is how hard would it have been to ammend FISA to include groups defined by 1801(a)(4) (international terrorists) into the group of folks covered under warrantless surveillance? Would that not have made this legal, presuming some demonstrable link to international terrorists via a captured cell phone or similar intel?
On another note, I don't think W realizes the path he's on with the aggrandizement of executive power. `Course I been wrong before...
10:09 PM
I thought the purpose of the media was to convey information with regard to news and entertainment otherwise.
It is an example of what's been wrong with the media for the last 40 years to state its function is to be adverse to government. Its function is not to be adverse to government. Its function is to convey truthful and accurate unbiased information, whether it is good or bad for the government.
Sadly almost all media outlets fail at this task miserable, but not because they fail to do everything they possibly can to subvert the electoral process against republicans, conservatives, and George Bush in particular.
We are talking about the same media that created obviously false documents to gin up some outright lies about President Bush in a blatant attempt to illegally and unethically subvert the democratic process in the best traditions of every dirty politician that has ever lived. Its not Kennedy the media and left emulate these days, its Nixon and Huey Long. They have become that which they profess to hate.
I for one will be very happy to see some NYSlimes reporters frog marched to prison for contempt of court for failing to reveal the names and notes on their sources for the illegal acts of leaking this highly sensitive classified operation at a time of war.
President Lincoln had jailed for sedition some members of congress and/or media types for doing less than many democrat politicians and media types have been doing to sabotage our war effort.
The left has set the standard on illegal leaks of confidential information with the Plame case. Now its time to frog march some more reporters and some traitors within and without the government. I will be loudly cheering when that day comes.
Bush's actions are completely legal for many reasons, which have been documented here in other comments by me, and are documented by others on Professor Bainbridge and other law professor sites. The only illegal or treasonous activity is on the part of the traitors who did the leaking and the Slimes who printed it solely to improperly influence political matters and to serve their own personal greed and avarice with a follow-on book deal. They are scum.
Gary
10:38 PM
Glenn your partisan slip is showing again.
If GWB is guilty, then Rockefeller has just given proof of his complicity. If he cared about the safety of the country, or protecting civil liberties he would have told the Whitehouse to change their ways or he was going public a year ago.
Instead he chose to play politics.
Not to mention you want to hold the President accountable for what many argue was not a crime yet you wish to give a pass to whoever leaked this story who obviously committed one.
All I am asking is that you be intellectually honest.
I think you are better than this.
Please come back off the ledge bud.
10:44 PM
Gary, the courts will settle the release of so called sensitive information. Frankly, it looks to me like there is no official secret other than Bush's desire to not have his crimes exposed.
You are so on the wrong side of this one. No one I have read or heard, including Gonzales et all, have made a case for any damage done, protential or actual, or for any reason to call the wiretaps secret. All crime bosses want to keep their work secret. I don't think it's a crime to expose the criminal in the administration.
If you can't find your way to a saner view of this act of the Pres, Gary, get ready for a bumpy ride.
Jake
10:52 PM
TUA, apparently these so called briefings given to Rockefeller at al were not actually "full" briefings - as in the details and scope of what was done were not provided.
No, once again, the Pres is on his own and he gets no pass because he "told" the Democrats what he was doing.
Jake
10:58 PM
Baloney Jake. They were told exactly what was going on.
From Just one Minute:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/12/nsa_eavesdroppi.html
A high-ranking intelligence official with firsthand knowledge said in an interview yesterday that Vice President Cheney, then-Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet and Michael V. Hayden, then a lieutenant general and director of the National Security Agency, briefed four key members of Congress about the NSA's new domestic surveillance on Oct. 25, 2001, and Nov. 14, 2001, shortly after Bush signed a highly classified directive that eliminated some restrictions on eavesdropping against U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
The high-ranking intelligence official, who spoke with White House permission but said he was not authorized to be identified by name, said Graham is "misremembering the briefings," which in fact were "very, very comprehensive." The official declined to describe any of the substance of the meetings, but said they were intended "to make sure the Hill knows this program in its entirety, in order to never, ever be faced with the circumstance that someone says, 'I was briefed on this but I had no idea that -- ' and you can fill in the rest."
By Graham's account, the official said, "it appears that we held a briefing to say that nothing is different . . . . Why would we have a meeting in the vice president's office to talk about a change and then tell the members of Congress there is no change?"
Comon Jake you can't have your cake and eat it too. Graham and Rockefeller knew and did nothing.
12:21 AM
The high-ranking intelligence official, who spoke with White House permission but said he was not authorized to be identified by name,
LOL! An official "anonymous" source. Like the American public hasn't been burned enough by such sources. Really, I'd take the word of two senators over the word of the above quoted "high-ranking intelligence official" anyday.
But even if its true that Graham and Rockefeller sat on their hands, that doesn't absolve Bush. It just makes Graham and Rockefeller culpable, and they should be voted out when their re-election bids come up.
12:52 AM
Time to take our country back.
The George W Bush 2000 Stolen Election commemorative gold coin magnet.
Show Republicans your opposition to the illegitimate Bush regime.
Get them here.
http://www.cafepress.com/revolution09.40907793
http://www.cafepress.com/revolution09
Whenever you write to a Representative or Senator include this text.
Add the following text below to your letter or petition. This will tell the senators and representatives that you will use the power of your purchases to leverage the legislation or action you want done.
We demand that you get the Republican Party to hold a press conference and accede to these demands. Until such a press conference happens and the legislation gets passed we will boycott products from Republican contributors Walmart, Wendy’s, Outback Steak House, Dominos Pizza, Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Eckerd, CVS and Walgreens, Curves for women health clubs, GE and Exxon/Mobil.
1:58 AM
Well this is gonna leave a mark all over left wing blogdom and UFO's everywhere:
> Read 'em and weep boys: I wonder how Carl Levin, Russ Feingold, and Barbara
> Boxer are going to explain this to the American People.
>
> Next on Drudge. Monkeys spotted flying out of the Ass of Harry Reid. Film
> at 11:00!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL
>
> From Drudge:
>
>
> CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
>
> CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
>
> Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do
> searches without court approval
>
> Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve
> physical searches, without a court order"
>
> Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is
> authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
> intelligence information without a court order."
>
> WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S.
> citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department
> official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find
> information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use
> classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to
> observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
>
> Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration
> believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless
> searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
>
> Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and
> October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
>
>
So 9/11 Commissioner and Clinton Deputy Attorney General, Jamie (the WAll) Gorelick says the president has inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance and even warrantless physical searches of premises.
Ouch, that's gotta hurt.
Gary
2:39 AM
-sigh... like shooting fish in a barrel...
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/
...more kool-aid Gary?
8:56 AM
Fair enough, but you omit the fact that Clinton's people argued to congress that the President has "inherent constitutional authority" that isn't defined by these statutes. Just like the current President's advisor say.
Next your quote points out the problem for Bush and why he had to exercise his inherent constitutional authority. Read the part below you quoted where the attorney general has to certify that no US Person will be surveilled. Then tell me how the attorney general could make such a certification when all they have that needs to be quickly and instantly acted upon is a list of phone numbers some which might be cell phones with foreign numbers but operating out of the US or US telephone numbers which may or may not have US Persons at the other end.
Then explain to me how if that's all the info you have how you convince a judge that you have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by the person at the other end of the phone number when that's all you have. Even terrorists have to call their turbin makers, tailors, and order out for pizza now and then. FISA requires a criminal law, full probable cause approach, when a US Person might be involved and is wholly inadequate for protecting this country.
FISA exists because the left has never stopped viewing the world through the prism of a bunch of unwashed hippies looking at Nixon, Johnson, and Vietnam. This so colors their thinking they are unfit to lead or even have input on these matters, and their lack of nuance is shown in how they are unable to even discuss these matters without saying if we don't maintain an Al Qaeda bill of rights then the sky is falling and we are all suffering from KGB and Hitler type control and surveillance.
Gary (now who's drinkng Kool-Aid)
2:57 PM
Gary writes:
FISA exists because the left has never stopped viewing the world through the prism of a bunch of unwashed hippies looking at Nixon, Johnson, and Vietnam. This so colors their thinking they are unfit to lead or even have input on these matters, and their lack of nuance is shown in how they are unable to even discuss these matters without saying if we don't maintain an Al Qaeda bill of rights then the sky is falling and we are all suffering from KGB and Hitler type control and surveillance.
I am not and never have been either a hippie nor a left-winger. FISA was a congressional attempt to settle the thorny constitutional questions of Executive power vis-a-vis national security. It is the law. Bush violated that law.
If Clinon did so as well, that would not surprise me. It doesn't matter who is in the oval office or what party they come from, they all want Executive power to be unfettered and resist defering to Congress.
And I don't hear any serious voices claiming that Hitlerian nightmares are nigh; but Glenn, and Russ Feingold, are speaking about the President as King. That seems choice rhetoric, given why the Founders gave us the 4th Am in the first place.
3:47 PM