The Ashford Zone Blog

Reuters:

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday resisted bipartisan appeals for changes in a hotly disputed warrantless eavesdropping program, saying he believed "we have all the legal authority we need."

Not a tough standard to meet, when your "legal authority" amounts to nothing more than your own hand-picked attorney general who doesn’t believe in courts.

Stolen from Atrios:

Uh, Washington?

Alberto:  "President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale. "

Aside from the rather obvious issue of, you know, lacking electronic communications at the time, what war was President Washington fighting?

Then there’s this exchange:

BIDEN: Thank you very much.

General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

I’m almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn’t think we were intercepting their phone calls.

I mean, I’m a little confused. How did it damage this?

GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I’m just the lawyer.

And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true — you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

But if they’re not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

That’s right.  That’s the argument: Our national security depends on al Qaeda members forgetting that the U.S. engages in surveillance.  So when the New York Times prints a story that reminds al Qaeda about surveillance, it makes us weaker.

Holy crap.  That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard any attorney general say.

Kevin Hayden:

[The Administration] claims al Qaeda has the sophistication to build a nuke, the weapon that numerous nations have tried to achieve for the past half century, most without success. But that same al Qaeda might ‘forget’ that our intel agents are always trying to triangulate their locations via tapped phones…. if our dirty rat newspapers weren’t always reminding them.

SCENE:  A small relatively unfurnished apartment in Buffalo.  The phone rings.

Qukim:  "Hello?"

al-Qadir [on the other end]:  "Praise be to Allah"

Qukim:  "Praise be to Allah.  Death to the infidels.  What’s up?"

al-Qadir:  "Can you talk?"

Qukim:  "Yeah.  I was just watching ‘American Idol’.  I’m alone.’"

al-Qadir:  "Okay.  Well, listen up and listen closely.  Tomorrow is the night when we strike the heart of the infidels.  You will board Flight 26 in Orlando and fly to meet your contact, Muhammad al-Bagh, in the Burger King at the Atlanta airport at 2:30 pm.  There you will be given a briefcase."

Qukin: "A briefcase?"

al-Qadir:  "Yeah.  Black leather.  In it, there will be . . . . oh, FUCK!"

Qukim: "What?!?"

al-Qadir:  "Shit.  Fuck fuck fuck fuck!  I don’t believe this!!"

Qukim:  "What is it?!?"

al-Qadir:  "I just glanced over at the coffee table and saw a newspaper with some headline about Senate hearings on NSA wiretapping."

Qukim:  "Oooooooooh.  That’s riiiiiight!"

al-Qadir:  "I totally forgot that this phone line might be tapped!!"

Qukim:  "Me, too."

al-Qadir:  "Oh, I’m such an idiot!  And here I am just blabbering away…."

Qukim:  "We could pretend it was a joke.  Say that you were just joking."

al-Qadir:  "Well, it’s too late now, moron!  They just heard you say ‘Pretend it was a joke’."

Qukim:  "But . . . um . . . it is a joke.  Ha.  Ha.  Um.  You are such a . . . kidder, al-Qadir."

al-Qadir:  "DON’T SAY MY NAME!!!  This is bad enough!"

Qukim:  "Yeah.  Maybe we should hang up?"

al-Qadir:  "Okay.  Bye."

Qukim:  "Bye.  Death to the infidels."

al-Qadir:  *Groans*

*CLICK*

BIDEN: Can you assure us, General, you are fully, totally informed and confident that you know the absolute detail with which this program is being conducted? Can you assure us you personally can assure us no one is being eavesdropped upon in the United States other than — other than someone who has a communication that is emanating from foreign soil by a suspected terrorist, al Qaeda, or otherwise?

GONZALES: Sir, I can’t give you absolute assurance.

Um, yeah.  I think we get the picture.

Here:

And in this post Kevin Drum hits on a key point …

I’m also more tired than you can imagine of his constant invocation of presidents from Washington to Roosevelt who authorized warrantless surveillance in wartime. All of that happened before FISA was passed in 1978 and is completely meaningless. And he knows it.

Kevin doesn’t fully unpack what I suspect he’s getting at here. The argument to history that Gonzales is attempting isn’t just off point. It’s typical of the administration’s basic way of operating with the public — conscious misdirection and flimflam. You can’t make this argument unless your intent is to confuse the issue and avoid the issue of whether the president has to follow the law.

First Amendment lawyer Glenn Greenwald is going to butt heads with Powerline’s John Hindrocket on NPR’s To The Point today (2:10 pm EST) on the subject of the NSA hearings.  Should be fun, seeing as Glenn is on the forefront of blogger contributions to the wiretapping issue, and Hindrocket just scratches his head and wonders what all the fuss is about.  I think we’re going to see hear what it’s like when a conservative pundit brings a knife to a gunfight.

CNET News.com asked telecommunications and Internet companies about cooperation with the Bush administration’s domestic eavesdropping scheme.

The question asked: "Have you turned over information or opened up your networks to the NSA without being compelled by law?"

Bottom Line: "Major telecommunications companies" have reportedly opened their networks to the NSA. Because it may be illegal to divulge customer communications, though, not one of the companies has chosen to make its cooperation public.

It is interesting to note the number of companies who decline to comment, or are cagy in their response.  Why might they be doing this?  Do they wish to avoid the wrath of their conservative customers (because they don’t assist the NSA)?  Or their liberal ones (because they do assist the NSA)?  Or are they concerned about national security issues?

In a related item, it is interesting to note that Bush’s father, when he was CIA director in 1976 "complained that some major communications companies were unwilling to install government wiretaps without a judge’s approval", and that such a refusal "seriously affects the capabilities of the intelligence community."  Yup.  During the Ford Administration, there was a debate on warrantless surveillance, and the cast of charactors included Bush (the Elder), Cheney, and Rumsfeld.  That was 1976, two years before FISA.  Have times changed?

The unwritten rule of comity states that ex-Presidents don’t criticize sitting presidents.  Thankfully, Carter isn’t sitting still for that:

Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the Bush administration’s domestic eavesdropping program Monday and said he believes the president has broken the law.

"Under the Bush administration, there’s been a disgraceful and illegal decision — we’re not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we’re spying on the American people," Carter told reporters. "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act."

You tell ’em, Jimmy.