Congress blasts Bush's surveillance of U.S. calls, e-mails

Congress blasts Bush's surveillance of U.S. calls, e-mailsA secret government program sparked outrage in Congress and hurt efforts to extend the Patriot Act.By RON HUTCHESONrhutcheson@krwashington.comWASHINGTON - Members of Congress from both parties expressed outrage Friday over revelations that President Bush launched a secret domestic surveillance program in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The disclosure that the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on domestic telephone conversations created a furor that could have far-reaching implications for the Bush presidency. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, promised a thorough investigation into the secret program early next year.

The surveillance operation was disclosed Friday by The New York Times, which reported that the government has been monitoring phone calls and e-mail messages from the United States to foreign destinations without warrants for the past three years. ''There is no doubt that this is inappropriate. It's inexcusable to have spying on people in the United States without court surveillance in violation of our law -- beyond any question,'' Specter said.

Democrats accused the administration of trampling constitutional rights in the name of national security. ''This administration feels it's above the law, and the American people and our Constitution pay the price,'' Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said. ``This is Big Brother run amok.'' Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Bush may have broken the federal law restricting domestic surveillance and violated constitutional protections against intrusive searches by approving the wiretaps ''We are a government of law. The Congress was never asked to give the president the kind of unilateral authority that appears to have been exercised,'' she said. Bush declined to discuss the substance of the newspaper report, but he said he tries to strike a balance between protecting Americans from terrorist attacks and safeguarding civil liberties.

''I think the point that Americans really want to know is twofold. One, are we doing everything we can to protect the people? And two, are we protecting civil liberties as we do so? And my answer to both questions is yes, we are,'' Bush said in an interview with PBS anchorman Jim Lehrer. Anger over the surveillance operation helped derail the Bush administration's efforts Friday to extend the police powers granted by the Patriot Act. Supporters of the anti-terror law failed to get the 60 votes needed to bring the extension to a vote in the Senate. Some key provisions of the Patriot Act, which sailed through Congress after the terrorist attacks in 2001, are set to expire at year's end. ''I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this [Senate] floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care,'' Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said in opposing the law's extension without an overhaul. ``This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American.'' The domestic surveillance effort -- a significant departure from previous practice -- is in keeping with Bush's aggressive approach to potential terrorist threats. The president has faced similar criticism in the past over the treatment of terrorist suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; the practice of sending suspects to third countries with a history of torture and the establishment of secret interrogation facilities in Europe. ''This is a different kind of war,'' Bush said in a speech shortly after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. ``Some victories will be won outside of public view, in tragedies avoided and threats eliminated. Other victories will be clear to all.'' According to The New York Times, Bush established the domestic surveillance program in 2002 by authorizing the National Security Agency to monitor international communications by suspected terrorists in the United States. The secret presidential order relaxed safeguards intended to prohibit government spying on American citizens.

Government officials told the newspaper that government eavesdroppers sought court-approved warrants only for conversations within the United States, not for overseas calls. The paper reported that ''hundreds, perhaps thousands of people inside the United States'' have been targeted for monitoring over the past three years.

''The president has, in effect, created an off-the-books surveillance procedure without any legislative authority,'' said Marc Rotenberg, a law professor at Georgetown University and executive director of the Electronic Security Information Center, a civil liberties group. ``The president has claimed an extraordinary power, the right to conduct surveillance without judicial review. He is in a place where no president has been before.'' Government officials told The New York Times that the clandestine program helped disrupt a planned 2003 attack on the Brooklyn Bridge. According to the paper, congressional leaders from both parties were briefed on the surveillance effort. Former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002, said he was not informed of the domestic surveillance program. In an interview, Graham recalled a 2002 meeting in Vice President Dick Cheney's office about a far more narrow plan by the National Security Agency to intercept communications from outside the United States to other foreign destinations that rely on U.S. satellite links. ''What the administration did was not justified,'' Graham said. ``You don't fight terrorism by taking away the constitutional liberties of U.S. citizens. . . . I never saw a situation of extreme urgency that would warrant this.''

Miami Herald staff writer Frank Davies contributed to this report, along with Knight Ridder bureau reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel.

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755-6000

24 February 2000

United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative:

Recently, many allegations have surfaced about activities conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA). We anticipate a continuation, if not an increase, in these allegations for the foreseeable future. In fact, a 27 February 2000 airing of a CBS "60 Minutes" newsmagazine report may feature adverse information about the National Security Agency (NSA). We are providing the attached documents on the oversight of NSA and some answers to frequently asked questions in an effort to answer some of your questions concerning the allegations.

We want to assure you that NSA's activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal, and ethical standards, and in compliance with statutes and regulations designed to protect the privacy rights of U.S. persons. Agency employees are trained to comply with these standards, and an extensive oversight system that includes internal and external reviews exists to ensure compliance.

As is the long-standing policy within the United States Intelligence Community, we must refrain from commenting on actual or alleged intelligence activities; therefore, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of specific operations. However, we can tell you that NSA operates in strict accordance with U.S. laws and regulations in protecting the privacy rights of U.S. persons.

We invite you to review the NSA web site (http://www.nsa.gov) for additional information and answers to other frequently asked questions.

The Intelligence Authorization Act for FY00 required the Director of NSA to submit a report to Congress on the legal standards for electronic surveillance. If you would like a copy of the report, or if you have any other questions, please contact Karen Clark, in my office, of 301-688-7246.

KENNETH A. HEATH
Chief of Staff
Legislative Affairs Office

Encl: a/s

OVERSIGHT OF NSA ACTIVITIES
The NSA is a civilian agency in the Department of Defense and is charged with two national missions: providing 1) foreign signals intelligence (SIGINT) information to U.S. Government policymakers and warfighters, and 2) information systems security (INFOSEC) products and services for the Department of Defense.

NSA, as part of the nation's Intelligence Community, intercepts and analyzes foreign adversaries' communications signals, many of which are guarded by codes and other complex countermeasures. INFOSEC provides leadership, products, technical advice, and services to protect classified and unclassified national security systems against exploitation through interception, unauthorized access, or related technical intelligence threats. INFOSEC support ranges from the highest level of government to the individual warfighter in the field. NSA provides solutions, products, and services, and conducts defensive information assurance for information infrastructure critical to U.S. national security interests.

NSA operates in strict accordance with U.S. laws and regulations in protecting the Fourth Amendment privacy rights of U.S. persons.** Since the 1970's, NSA's activities have been strictly controlled by written procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, and vetted with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.** The Fourth Amendment transcends whatever technology happens to be involved in a particular form of electronic surveillance.

Effective oversight of NSA's activities is conducted within the Executive Branch by the President's Intelligence Oversight Board and by Department of Justice and Department of Defense oversight organizations. In addition, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence conduct oversight of NSA's activities. During consideration of this year's Intelligence Authorization Act, a Chairman of one of the intelligence oversight committees expressed confidence that NSA is scrupulously adhering to the law and reiterated his committee's role in conducting effective oversight.

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.