Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

as usual, Congress was complicit....

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005)

mike_c

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:10 PM
Original message

as usual, Congress was complicit....

Bob Graham, who chaired the Senate intelligence committee during 2001, has revealed that at least four members of House and Senate Intelligence Committees were "briefed" about expanded NSA electronic surveillance by Dick Cheney during meetings in October and November of 2001. That's all well and good, but it specifically fails to meet the notification provisions of 50 USC 1802, which requires that the Attorney General be directed by the President to certify UNDER OATH before the House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence, in each instance, that the conditions for obtaining electronic surveillance searches were met. Bob Graham had a specific responsibility to tell Dick Cheney to send the AG to take the oath and report each and every time the President signed an order authorizing surveillance without a Foreign Intelligence Court order. By failing to do so, Congress gave the wink and nod to Cheney and to domestic spying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

texpatriot2004

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:11 PM
Response to Original message

1. GOP Culture of Corruption and the Cover-up Congress nm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

babylonsister

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:14 PM
Response to Original message

2. Here Graham claims he knew nothing about this surveillance:

Bob Graham, chair of Intel committee in '02, wasn't informed:

From Knight-Ridder:

snip

Former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002, said he wasn't 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."

snip

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."

snip

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13426057.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mike_c

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. interesting-- here he says he did....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x179877

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fridays Child

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:14 PM
Response to Original message

3. But it's just like pre-war intelligence...

Congress got to hear only what Bush wanted them to hear, and nothing more. Lies of ommission are just as damnable as lies of commission.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mike_c

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #3

6. but that's the point-- the law is clear about what Congress...

Edited on Sun Dec-18-05 12:22 PM by mike_c

...was SUPPOSED to hear, and they evidently let the executive get away with not meeting the notification requirements.

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.

(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless—

(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or

(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fridays Child

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #6

9. Maybe there's some piece I'm missing here but how could Congress...

...have asked for an accounting of something they didn't know was going to be done?

From http://warandpiece.com/: Former senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired the Senate intelligence committee and is the only participant thus far to describe the meetings extensively and on the record, said in interviews Friday night and yesterday that he remembers "no discussion about expanding to include conversations of U.S. citizens or conversations that originated or ended in the United States" -- and no mention of the president's intent to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mike_c

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #9

14. because such "discussion" was not sufficient to meet legal notification...

...requirements. The AG was supposed to provide that information under oath-- Congress should have insisted on that. It's clear that the surveillance that the admin conducted was illegal, and violated the provisions of the Foreign Intellegence Surveillance Act, and that they conducted it WITHOUT congressional oversight because Congress could not have legally allowed them to proceed, but my point is that the appropriate congressional leaders apparently DID know that something was going on that came under the oversight purview of USC 50 and they allowed the executive to proceed without notification. If Congress had insisted that the executive certify compliance with the Foreign Intellegence Surveillance Act, as required by law, the executive would have been unable to proceed (or would have had to proceed in even greater secrecy).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fridays Child

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #14

24. I see what you're saying.

It seems that all of the checks and balances, our only Constitutional safeguards against despotic regimes, were thrown away with both fists, even by Democrats, in the wake of 9-11. I shudder to think of the price we will all pay before this is over.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mike_c

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #24

25. yep, that's precisely my point....

I agree-- we've only just begun to see the effect this is going to have on America.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

C_U_L8R

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:17 PM
Response to Original message

5. It's a Threat

Bush is floating the "congress let me do it"
as a not-so-subtle threat that if he goes down
then they go down.

The drama is high (and so is Bush).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Skidmore

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:21 PM
Response to Original message

7. These people are being blackmailed. I've been saying it

for years. * and crew have learned all the nasty little secrets and are squeezing them to ignore and cover for their crimes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OmmmSweetOmmm

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #7

11. I have no doubt that some are being blackmailed, Skidmore, and others

being paid off in some way or another.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Jawja

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #7

17. Yes they are.

Beginning with the anthrax attacks in 2001.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NashVegas

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #17

19. If I Were Going to be Truly Paranoid

Edited on Sun Dec-18-05 12:58 PM by Crisco

I'd say about 6 months before that: Chandra Levy.

If I were going to be less paranoid, I'd just say they fear losing their gigs too much to be efficient.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seabeyond

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:26 PM
Response to Original message

8. bullshit. i think your interpretation is off

Edited on Sun Dec-18-05 12:27 PM by seabeyond

i dont have all the facts handy but wasnt that meeting about foriegn, not within country, interception? and didnt the handful just find out about tapping americans a month or two ago? so isnt your conclusions manipulated? i chose to find out what pelosi and others were told a couple months ago and why they said nothing. i dont know that ny times didnt air the story because they were pressured by dems. if congress has a procedure or rule they have to follow in being given this. i NEED way more information on the rules, what happened, why it did/did not happen before i fry the dems, shift the blame from bush, and crucufy our people

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

acmavm

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #8

12. I don't give a shit who knew what. The simple fact is that this is a

country of laws that are SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE from unlawful actions of the government. To spy on any of us without proving that it's justified and necessary is absolutely against everything this country stands for, was founded upon.

If dems knew any of this, they need to be shown the inside of a courtroom immediately after THEIR expulsion from whatever government body they were elected to.

This is shit or get off the pot time folks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seabeyond

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #12

16. yep i know that is how i do life. being way sarcastic

making a comment out loud and publicly, i dont give a shit who knew what.

i dont care for information thank you, i would rather fly blind and uniformed as i make my demands

even more sarcasm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

acmavm

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #16

22. I damn well don't care. If they knew, either party, they should be

expelled from whatever public body they were elected to, and then prosecuted. They helped this administration commit a crime. Republican or democrat, if they KNEW what this administration was doing (or going to do) that is what should happen to them.

Did you not pay attention to what I wrote? Or do you not understand English? I wasn't being sarcastic, I was being literal. Just like NOW. So you can take you snotty tone and stuff it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OmmmSweetOmmm

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:34 PM
Response to Original message

10. According to Russert this morning, Pelosi knew and from published

reports Rockefeller knew too. They both had reservations, but I hold them complicit in aiding and abetting a crime, as I do anyone who knew about this and didn't come forward.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Phoebe Loosinhouse

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:43 PM
Response to Original message

13. Congress was caught in a Catch-22

First of all - they were briefed, not asked. Secondly, even if they were asked, a small group in Congress and the executive branch do not have the authority to unilaterally override statute.

Everyone who was then "briefed" were in a bind because due to "national security" they could not discuss with anyone else the conversations that had taken place lest they themselves then be dragged off to Guantanamo for breaking National Security. We obviosly have a big problem here. The President and his henchmen tell a few Senators -"Oh by the way, we're not obeying the law anymore, but that information is super-duper-triple-top-secret and you can't tell anyone."

I guess no one ever envisioned that we would have people capable of activites like this occupying the White House. But now we do. And now we know. So now we have to have articles of impeachment.

It's amazing to me that the right wing fringe is trying to focus on "Who told?! They violated National security!!" instead of focusing on a President who breaks the law just because he can. He could have achieved anything he needed to do through lawful channels. He chose not to. I think this is just a dry run.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

emulatorloo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:47 PM
Response to Original message

15. can't we ever just blame bush for bush's bullshit??

Edited on Sun Dec-18-05 12:59 PM by emulatorloo

ON du Bush is never accountable for what he does. It is always somebody else's fault.

---

on edit bob g says they weren't told about domestic spying

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x179877

More Bob Graham:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10509407 /

Extent of policy shift disputed
Former senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired the Senate intelligence committee and is the only participant thus far to describe the meetings extensively and on the record, said in interviews Friday night and yesterday that he remembers "no discussion about expanding to include conversations of U.S. citizens or conversations that originated or ended in the United States" -- and no mention of the president's intent to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy," Graham said, with new opportunities to intercept overseas calls that passed through U.S. switches. He believed eavesdropping would continue to be limited to "calls that initiated outside the United States, had a destination outside the United States but that transferred through a U.S.-based communications system."

Graham said the latest disclosures suggest that the president decided to go "beyond foreign communications to using this as a pretext for listening to U.S. citizens' communications. There was no discussion of anything like that in the meeting with Cheney."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mike_c

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #15

18. no, of course they weren't told about domestic spying....

But they were told about NSA activity under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which specifically requires that the President direct the AG to certify UNDER OATH to the House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence that domestic spying is not being conducted, among other things. If Graham et al had insisted on this LEGAL REQUIREMENT, they could have prevented this. By allowing Cheney to simply "brief" them instead, they abetted the abuse of the Fourth Amendment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

emulatorloo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #18

21. mike, this is just a distraction. . .

and the end result it to absolve bushco of responsibility.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

mike_c

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #21

23. oh no, bushco should not be absolved....

I'm just tired of congress letting them get away with this shit over and over again. Today we've learned that congressional leaders have known that the executive was pushing the envelope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act since shortly after 9/11, even if they didn't know all the sordid details. Nonetheless, they let bushco get away with it, despite their legal responsibility to provide oversight, and a very clear description in U.S. Code about the form that oversight should take. I'm sick to death of congress aiding and abetting bushco's crimes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bridgit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-18-05 01:01 PM
Response to Original message

20. NOT THE REPUBLICAN LED CONGRESS!!!

and no...i do not accept their bringing in, in a most cynical attempt; a dem or two just to cloak themselves with some lieberman-esque sense of plausible deniability; they hold far too many secret 'republicans only' meetings & hearings & keep votes open beyond required time-frames to gain any defense there either fuck them too :thumbsdown:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sun May 05th 2024, 06:45 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC