Posted on 12/22/2008 8:59:18 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Dick Cheney's interview yesterday with Fox's Chris Wallace was filled with significant claims, but certainly among the most significant was his detailed narration of how the administration, and Cheney personally, told numerous Democratic Congressional leaders -- repeatedly and in detail -- about the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. And, according to Cheney, every one of those Democrats -- every last one -- not only urged its continuation, but insisted that it be kept secret:
WALLACE: Let's drill down into some of the specific measures that you pushed — first of all, the warrantless surveillance on a massive scale, without telling the appropriate court, without seeking legislation from Congress.
Why not, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the spirit of national unity, get approval, support, bring in the other branches of government?
CHENEY: Well, let me tell you a story about the terror surveillance program. We did brief the Congress. And we brought in...
WALLACE: Well, you briefed a few members.
CHENEY: We brought in the chairman and the ranking member, House and Senate, and briefed them a number of times up until — this was — be from late '01 up until '04 when there was additional controversy concerning the program.
At that point, we brought in what I describe as the big nine — not only the intel people but also the speaker, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and brought them into the situation room in the basement of the White House.
I presided over the meeting. We briefed them on the program, and what we'd achieved, and how it worked, and asked them, "Should we continue the program?" They were unanimous, Republican and Democrat alike. All agreed — absolutely essential to continue the program.
I then said, "Do we need to come to the Congress and get additional legislative authorization to continue what we're doing?" They said, "Absolutely not. Don't do it, because it will reveal to the enemy how it is we're reading their mail."
That happened. We did consult. We did keep them involved. We ultimately ended up having to go to the Congress after the New York Times decided they were going to make the judge to review all of — or make all of this available, obviously, when they reacted to a specific leak.
But it was a program that we briefed on repeatedly. We did these briefings in my office. I presided over them. We went to the key people in the House and Senate intel committees and ultimately the entirely leadership and sought their advice and counsel, and they agreed we should not come back to the Congress.
Cheney's reference to the "additional controversy concerning the program" that arose after 2004 and that led to additional Congressional briefings is ambiguous and creates a somewhat unclear time line: is he referring to late 2004, when the White House learned that The New York Times knew about the NSA program and was considering writing about it (only to then obey the President's orders to keep it a secret), or is he referring to the time when, more than a full year later, in December 2005, the NYT finally got around to writing about it, once Bush was safely re-elected?
Either way, Cheney's general claim is as clear as it is incriminating. According to him, key Congressional Democrats were told about the illegal NSA spying program in detail, and they not only actively approved of it, but far beyond that, they insisted that no Congressional authorization should even be sought, based on what was always the patently inane claim that to discuss the fact that the administration was eavesdropping on our conversations without warrants (rather than with warrants, as the law required) would be to reveal our secrets -- "our playbook" -- to Al Qaeda.
It is certainly true that Dick Cheney is not exactly the most scrupulously honest public servant around. In fact, he's almost certainly the opposite. Still, what he said yesterday was merely an expanded and more detailed version of what has previously been publicly reported and, to some degree, confirmed about the knowledge and support of Democratic leaders for the NSA program. Cheney's claims encompasses the following key Democrats:
Nancy Pelosi (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee, House Minority Leader);
Jane Harman (Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee);
Jay Rockefeller (Ranking Member, Senate Intelligence Committee);
Harry Reid Tom Daschle (Senate Minority Leader). Unsurprisingly, Pelosi, Harman and Rockefeller all voted last July to legalize warrantless eavesdropping and to immunize telecoms from liability, thereby ensuring an end to the ongoing investigations into these programs. And though he ultimately cast a meaningless vote against final passage, it was Reid's decisions as Majority Leader which played an instrumental role in ensuring passage of that bill.
One would think that these Democratic leaders would, on their own, want to respond to Cheney's claims about them and deny the truth of those claims. After all, Cheney's statement is nothing less than an accusation that they not only enthusiastically approved, but actively insisted upon the continuation and ongoing secrecy, of a blatantly illegal domestic spying program (one that several of them would, once it was made public, pretend to protest). As Armando says, "The Democratic members who participated in this meeting have two choices in my mind - refute Cheney's statements or admit their complicity in the illegal activity perpetrated by the Bush Administration."
I'm going to spend the day calling these members and trying to get some response to Cheney's claim. If I'm unable to obtain any responses, I'll post their numbers and encourage everyone to make similar calls. As I wrote on Saturday -- and documented before: "As a practical reality, the largest barrier to any route to prosecution -- including this one -- is that the Congressional Democratic leadership was complicit, to varying degrees, in the illegal programs." That's true not only of the NSA program, but also the Bush/Cheney torture program.
One last point: there is much consternation over Dick Cheney's "Nixon/Frost moment" yesterday, where he expressly endorsed the idea that, as a "general proposition," a "wartime" President can do anything he wants -- even if it violates duly enacted statutes -- as long as it's justified in the name of national security. In one sense, Cheney was being so explicit yesterday about his belief in Bush's lawbreaking powers in part because he's taking pride in being so defiant on his way out the door -- daring a meek and impotent political class to do anything about his lawlessness -- and also because Chris Wallace conducted one of the best interviews (and, revealingly, one of the only interviews) about the Bush/Cheney view of executive power.
But that this was the Bush administration's central operating principle is something that -- as was true for Cheney's involvement in America's torture regime -- was long known. As I wrote all the way back in December, 2005, days after the NSA scandal was first revealed:
These are not academic questions. Quite the contrary, it is hard to imagine questions more pressing. We are at a moment in time when not just fringe ideologues, but core, mainstream supporters of the President -- not to mention senior officials in the Administration itself – are openly embracing the theory that the President can use the power and military force of the United States to do whatever he wants, including to and against U.S. citizens, as long as he claims that it is connected to America’s "war" against terrorists – a war which is undeclared, ever-expanding, and without any visible or definable end.
While Bush advocates have long been toying with this theory in the shadows, the disclosure that Bush ordered warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens in undeniable violation of a Congressional statute has finally forced them to articulate their lawless power theories out in the open. Bush got caught red-handed violating the law, and once it became apparent that no argument could be made that he complied with the law, the only way to defend him was to come right out and say that he has the right to break the law. So that debate -- over the claimed limitlessness of George Bush's power -- can't be put off any longer.
By itself, the long-disclosed September 25, 2001 Yoo Memorandum left no doubt that our Government had formally and explicitly adopted an ideology of lawlessness. As a country, we just chose to ignore all of that, chose to do nothing about it. The absues and extremism of the last eight years began as a Bush administration initiative, but it culminated as something for which both political parties, our leading political and media institutions, and our citizenry generally bear collective responsibility.
* * * * * On a somewhat related note, this creepy little post inserted onto Matt Yglesias' Center for American Progress blog by Jennifer Palmieri, the CEO of CAP's "Action Fund", is a vivid exhibit illustrating how Washington works, for reasons which Matt Stoller, Markos Moulitsas, and Brendan Nyhan all describe. Matt very well may not consider it to constitute interference with his editorial autonomy, but it nonetheless illustrates the potential constraints that can come from writing for an organization like that.
When I first joined Salon, the commitment they made, which for me was non-negotiatiable, was absolute editorial independence. Though that's an unusual commitment for a magazine to make, they did make it, and they never once -- in almost two years of my being here -- even came close to violating it. Even as I've waged quite acrimonious mini-wars with friends and former colleagues of top editors and officers here, and even as I've aggressively advocated views that were, at times, the opposite of the ones top editors here were advocating, there's never been a hint of interference or even pressure, and I couldn't even fathom their doing anything like sticking a note onto my blog of the type Palmieri just inserted onto Matt's blog.
Editorial independence is quite rare and quite valuable. It's still one of the key distinguishing features between blogs/alternative media outlets and establishment media. As Atrios suggests: "contemplate the issue of editorial independence, and the various revenue models which make it possible or not." It's worth supporting the bloggers who practice it and the media venues that allow and encourage it.
UPDATE: As I said, Cheney's time line is unclear, and it's possible, when he references an "additional controversy," he's referring to the DOJ's objections to the NSA program in March, 2004 -- not anything having to do with the New York Times. That would mean the detailed, expanded briefings he's describing would have included then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle, but not Harry Reid (who only became Minority Leader in 2005, once Daschle lost). If Cheney is describing 2005 briefings, they would have included Reid. That's all the more reason why responses from leading Democrats here is required.
That key Democrats were briefed on the NSA program is anything but new. USA Today reported in 2006 that Democratic leaders including Pelosi were repeatedly briefed on the program. There is some marginal dispute about what they were and weren't told, but no dispute about the existence of the briefings and the complete lack of any real efforts by Democrats to stop it or even object.
UPDATE II: Via email, several very knowledgeable bloggers -- including Marcy Wheeler and Christy Hardin Smith -- are arguing, persuasively, that Cheney did not really disclose any specific new facts yesterday about Democratic complicity, that while he may have emphasized more clearly than ever before the approval he claims Democrats gave, all of the facts, in one venue or another, have been previously disclosed. Cheney yesterday was almost certainly talking about the March, 2004 White House briefing (that would have included Pelosi, Harman and Rockefeller -- but not Reid), which has been reported.
Re-examining what Cheney said, they're probably right. But none of that, as Spencer Ackerman points out, undermines at all the need for Congressional Democrats finally to give a full accounting of what they knew, what they were told, and what they said about these programs. Particularly given how publicly Cheney is taunting them for having approved of the NSA program, they should respond specifically to Cheney's claims -- confirm the parts that are true and deny the parts, if any, that aren't.
The reason the law requires that Congressional leaders be briefed on intelligence programs is not because it's nice in the abstract for someone to know. It's because Congressional leaders have the right and the obligation to take action to stop illegal intelligence programs -- something all briefed Democrats clearly failed to do. Cheney, on his way out the door, is answering questions about what he knew and approved. It's way past time for Pelosi, Harman and Rockefeller, at the very least, to do the same.
UPDATE III: Last week, I was interviewed by Fox News' Jim Angle regarding the John Brennan controversy. For those interested: his story will air tonight on Brit Hume's Fox News broadcast, at 6:00 p.m. EST.
It does not register to you that all three branches already have the means through the powers enumerated to them through the Constitution to check and balance each other. You seem to think though that the Executive cannot execute its power as Commander in Chief without having Congress act as supervisor. The interpretation that you have given of the power granted to Congress would mean that the Executive should turn over all of its communications and records to Congress on a daily basis for supervision. Your view of the Constitution is ridiculous and dangerous.
Ha ha! You must really crack yourself up.
>>Were they complicit in the Bush Administration’s violation of the law?
You gotta ask, why do you think that despite the 2006 takeover of Congress, Pelosi/Reid, never pursued any hearings or drama as demanded by Moveon and the like?
Bush had the Dems over a barrel, they couldn’t go after him without exposing their twofaced, hypocritical “outrage” at the Bush programs, because they had been briefed and briefed and briefed.
Strategery and Poker. Glass Houses.
The Dems were hoisted on their own petard. If they went after Bush, they naive, gullible voter base would’ve been totally disillusioned.
Not to mention the fact that they also would of found out that they hold the wrong view on the Constitution in regards to this issue. Even the FISA Court had ALREADY ruled that the Commander in Chief has this power.
That’s almost not even the issue, since I doubt Obama is going to give up any executive powers, especially any pertaining to security and defense.
And, agreeing with your statement, only adds to the blatantly political aspects of the Democrats stance.
Strictly expediency for political gain.
But, they preserved that illusion through the election.
I will have to disagree with you here, there is no reason what so ever to doubt Vice President(not Mr.)Cheney here, or any other time.
LOL not just that but this author had no historical knowledge whatsoever. Lincoln (one of my favorites) probably violated the constitution more often than all the presidents since.
I am not the author of this article, thank The Lord!
Among other things, Lincoln kept the Maryland legislayure from meeting to keep it from voting for secession. He must have been thinking: Dang, why did those guys not keep the capital in Philadelphia or New York!
Among other things, Lincoln kept the Maryland legislayure from meeting to keep it from voting for secession. He must have been thinking: Dang, why did those guys not keep the capital in Philadelphia or New York!
“I will have to disagree with you here, there is no reason what so ever to doubt Vice President(not Mr.)Cheney here, or any other time.”
No doubts here; I posted two links to support his claim, one from 2005 and one from 2006, that he did, in fact, call in the Dem leaders.
We are in a war with terrorists, domestic & foreign. GWB mostly knows who the terrorists are, but the Left in this country are very confused about who the terrorist are.
The liberals make the case that it is the USA. GWB, Israel, & conservatives (rich, white, homophobe racists) who are the terrorists. So, if say, Senator Shelby or Rush or YOU is talking to someone of the same conservative persuasion in a foreign country, Obama & co. have the legal right to record this conversation & use it against you. We are, you are a terrorist in their eyes, so the surveillance laws will likely now be directed at us conservatives.
And since when do our leaders follow the letter & spirit of our laws? Ask Joe the Plumber about that! On the contrary, our leaders on BOTH sides of the aisle & in all 3 branches routinely use their positions to further their own personal, political & partisan greed, with little regard for the constitution or the people.
I don't want the gov’t to have MORE power over our lives - I want them to have less.
Frankly, I would rather have a few bombs go off here in the USA, than to give our gov’t unlimited power to spy on Americans. I'd rather a US police state be blown to Hell. The USA has survived a civil war & several wars w/o the Patriot Act & its "enhancements".
And yes, monitoring conversations between an American citizen & a foreigner is spying on US citizens. Monitoring conversations between foreigners, either here in the USA or abroad is completely OK with me. But if a US citizen is involved, a warrant is required I believe.
Finally, as we are at war, let's take that war to the sources - Pakistan, Iran, Gaza, Syria, Saudi Arabia, & more - rather that play defense on the streets of America, & give unchecked power to our politicians. Many people believe this war on terror will take upwards of 100 years to win, or lose. And already a warrant is not required. Scary!
“W may have been working to protect us, but with Gang Obama and the Demoncrats in control of Congress this power is “DANGEROUS”.”
I wonder how many Pub proponents of the Patriot act will regret the day they approved this criminal nonsense. Or will they just be glad that the ruling class has more power?
I believe the weakness & eventual collapse of our current republican form of gov’t will be directly related to the ruling class & their unlimited ability to pass innumerable laws favoring themselves at the expense of the rest of us.
You said:
“My point is this:
We are in a war with terrorists, domestic & foreign. GWB mostly knows who the terrorists are, but the Left in this country are very confused about who the terrorist are.
The liberals make the case that it is the USA. GWB, Israel, & conservatives (rich, white, homophobe racists) who are the terrorists. So, if say, Senator Shelby or Rush or YOU is talking to someone of the same conservative persuasion in a foreign country, Obama & co. have the legal right to record this conversation & use it against you. We are, you are a terrorist in their eyes, so the surveillance laws will likely now be directed at us conservatives.”
______________
You claim above that surveillance without a warrant will be used against American citizens yet there has been no conservative who has argued for that in this case. There also has been NO examples of Americans being targeted for surveillance without a warrant. The Bush administration has never argued for this power to be used against American citizens but instead has made it clear that this was not the case. Again there have been NO cases of Americans being the target of warrantless surveillance. It is just pure spin on your part to make it seem like that is what the argument is about.
If a President wants to target Americans who oppose him politically then he will probally do it anyway but it will not be the result of the arguments that are made to continue to allow the President to intercept possible enemy communications crossing our border.
________________
You said:
And since when do our leaders follow the letter & spirit of our laws? Ask Joe the Plumber about that! On the contrary, our leaders on BOTH sides of the aisle & in all 3 branches routinely use their positions to further their own personal, political & partisan greed, with little regard for the constitution or the people.
I don’t want the gov’t to have MORE power over our lives - I want them to have less.
____________________________
If you do not trust anyone in all three branches of government then how is going to the other two branches for permission to surveil make our freedoms any safer in your view anyway.
Besides you are relying on spin again that somehow this has to do with targeting American citizens when it does not. So it does not give the gov’t MORE power over our lives as you claim.
_________________________
You said:
Frankly, I would rather have a few bombs go off here in the USA
________________________
Oh really? Well the next bomb to go off may kill 300,000 or possibly 3 million. You claim to care about freedom but I do not believe you really do.
When these bombs go off that do not seem to bother you it will bother many other people though for sure. Under your acceptable scenerio of bombs going off I am sure that we will end up losing much much MORE of our freedom.
_________________________
You said:
And yes, monitoring conversations between an American citizen & a foreigner is spying on US citizens.
________________________________
Sorry but no it is not. You (US citizen) do not have a right to privacy with the foreign enemies of this nation. If you (US citizen) become a target then a warrant will be needed but if you are on the phone with some cave in Pakistan then our Commander in Chief has the duty to intercept this communication.
________________________
You said:
Monitoring conversations between foreigners, either here in the USA or abroad is completely OK with me. But if a US citizen is involved, a warrant is required I believe.
________________________
No it is not. If a conversation is to be used against an American citizen then yes it is but if the target is the enemy then no it is not.
You said:
“Monitoring conversations between foreigners, either here in the USA or abroad is completely OK with me. But if a US citizen is involved, a warrant is required I believe.”
Let me give you a “what if” question to answer.
Let’s say that foreign entities (terrorists) are being monitored in Pakistan.
They are talking together about giving the signal to their American cell that all is in position and for them to go ahead and set off a massive dirty bomb and release chemical warfare in a major city. They are planning to kill 100s of thousands of Americans. Let’s say that we are hearing all of this go on and have established the seiousness and capabilities of the terrorists involved even.
You have already said that you are ok with this type of monitoring because so far in my “what if” scenerio it is all foreigners outside of the United States even that are being monitred (no US citizen involved... yet).
Next a call is coming in to these terrorists and guess what? The other end of the line is to an American citizen.
What do you do?
Do you suspend the surviellance (not listen to the enemy) and rush to the Court for permission?
Or what do you think is appropiate in this instance?
Read today’s news yet?
“WASHINGTON — A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?_r=3&hp
As I have said before - there is no Constitutional right to privacy in communicating with our enemies overseas. Only if an American citizen is the target of the intercept is there a need for ‘due process’. The Commander-in-Chief does not require permission in order to intercept enemy communications.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.