I SAID THIS WAS HUGE....Now the WAPO's got it !!!

[Justice Is Comin]

Now the media has got to report it. :kick:

Bush's top guy rejected the very standard in 2002 that he's been violating regularly now for three years. Even worse, DeWine's proposed amendment to the Patriot Act would have only lowered the standard to get surveillance approval for International purposes.

Now Bush, has been violating his own rejected standard and he's doing it right here in the GOOD OLE USA!!!!! Communist style.

]<CLIP>

During Senate debate over DeWine's amendment in July 2002, James A. Baker, the Justice Department's counsel for intelligence policy, said in a statement that the Bush administration did not support the proposal "because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues."

Baker said it was "not clear cut" whether the proposal would "pass constitutional muster," and "we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions" if the amendment was later struck down by the courts. He also said Justice had been using FISA aggressively and played down the notion that the probable cause standard was too high.

A DeWine spokesman declined to comment on the issue yesterday.

Also yesterday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) sent a list of 15 sharply worded questions to Gonzales in preparation for a Feb. 6 hearing on the legality of the NSA program. Specter asks, among other things, why the government did not ask Congress for new legislation to allow the spying.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502270.html Keep it up WAPO!!

[FreedomAngel82]

1. I'm glad they posted it

I hope this changes something with this.

[NYC]

2. This is good news.

Related:

...FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five
years in jail, for the executive to conduct a wiretap
without statutory authorization...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122605I.shtml

[Lex]

3. Finally some stirrings from the media.

I hope this continues.

[Career Prole]

4. K & R! Must burn the WaPo ombudsman up

getting scooped by bloggers this soon after crapping on us. :evilgrin:

[tijis]

5. Thanks, Justice!

:) I'd recommend, but I can't do that yet either.

More from Knight Ridder: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13712090/13712090.htm

and soon to be in the LA Times: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/25/223126/729

Glenn Greenwald will have more follow-up on this later: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

[redqueen]

31. Hi tijis! Welcome to DU!

:hi:

:bounce:

[Rose Siding]

6. Also Knight Ridder and the LAT-

In 2002, Justice Department said eavesdropping law working well
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13712090/13712090.htm

"Coming soon from the Los Angeles Times(not online yet)
WASHINGTON -- Four years ago, top Bush administration lawyers told Congress they opposed lowering the legal standard for intercepting the phone calls of foreigners who were in the United States, even while the administration secretly adopted a lower standard on its own.

The government's public position then was the mirror opposite of its rationale today in defending its warrantless domestic spying program, which has come under attack as a violation of civil liberties. Government wiretapping -- and who sets the rules -- has emerged at the center of a growing debate between the White House and Congress since the disclosure last month of the administration's warrantless spying program.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/25/223126/729

[samhsarah]

8. right there is why the wapo posted it....

didn't want to get scooped by kr. otherwise it would have been 18th paged.

[Pachamama]

7. Just curious: Is the James A. Baker from Justice Dept. any relation to

the James Baker, former Sec. of State and Bush Family Consigliery that we all know so well?

Just wondering...seems that the Bush Crime Family has their people placed everywhere they need their dirty work done....

Looks like this is an area they screwed up on, eh? :eyes:

[orleans]

9. yes and this is also the james baker who is either personally

(or his law firm is) defending the terrorists in the lawsuit brought by the 9/11 families. (can we all wrap our minds around that little tidbit?)

[Pachamama]

17. I also found it interesting that at the Georgetown Law Forum yesterday at

which Alberto Gonzales spoke, that the 4 representatives on the panel were 2 law professors from G-town (one of which David Cole, who is fantastic) who spoke against the domestic spying, and then a Prof. Turner from Univ of VA and (drum roll please) - a lawyer from the law firm of "Baker...."....that spoke in defense of the practice....Hmmmm....:eyes:

If one actually stops and thinks about all this and like you said "wrap our minds around that little tidbit (or rather lots of big tidbits)" then it makes you stop for a minute and wonder if this isn't all inter-connected and planned from the get-go....

[Hekate]

20. WHAT?!? Oy, I've fallen down the rabbit hole again

These people bring new meaning to the words surreal and bizarre.

Hekate

[Oilwellian]

25. No, it's a different James Baker

You're thinking of James A. Baker III.

[alfredo]

10. Will the people understand

just what is going on?

[McCamy Taylor]

11. Oh, my. Carlyle Group vs the Neo-cons?

[CoffeeCat]

14. I thought the Carlyle group WAS the neocons?

I can't keep up with the high-speed hamster wheel of evil that is our government.

[oasis]

12. Chimpyboy to get five years in the slammer.

:woohoo:

[NYC]

16. I love that.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to repeat this:

...FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five
years in jail, for the executive to conduct a wiretap
without statutory authorization...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122605I.shtml

[oasis]

21. If there was only a way to fit that statute on a bumper sticker. (eom)

:-)

[SammyWinstonJack]

34. Only five?

:-(

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. The way this was written is kind of misleading/confusing...

I had to read it 2-3 times to distill it, as (at least the version I read) didn't put it into a larger context making it clear that the 2002 rejection by Bush means he knew/knows what he was ordering was illegal; at first glance, it seemed to say that Bush was rejecting a looser standard as unconstitutional, and thereby adhering to a stricter standard, rather than a "Unitary Executive", do-whatever-I-damn-well-please (DWIDWP) standard...

[Justice Is Comin]

27. Maybe you didn't get a chance to see this.

This will REALLY put it in perpesctive for you. .....It's thanks to this man that we have this whole firestorm.



http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/administrations-new-fisa-defense-is.html

[regnaD kciN]

15. Never fear...

Baker said it was "not clear cut" whether the proposal would "pass constitutional muster," and "we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions" if the amendment was later struck down by the courts.

...it's certain to "pass constitutional muster" with the new Alito court.

:grr:

[Justice Is Comin]

18. That's fine

after we do the Bush-terectomy.

If the Judiciary Committee finds that the law was violated, it has a duty to make a referral to the House for Resolution Of Inquiry at the very least, for impeachment. The Supreme Court is not even in the picture.

[NYC]

24. I'm glad to hear that the Supreme Court

is not involved.

[msgadget]

19. Don't celebrate yet,

here's the nitpicky loophole:

"But Justice Department officials disagreed, saying the standard the department opposed in 2002 is legally different from the one used by the NSA.

"The FISA 'probable cause' standard is essentially the same as the 'reasonable basis' standard used in the terrorist surveillance program," said spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos, using the term for the NSA program the White House has adopted. "The 'reasonable suspicion' standard, which is lower than both of these, is not used in either program."

Note the new terminology in use - terrorist surveillance program. Let's see how long it takes the media to begin using it. If Specter was so concerned, why didn't he press Alito harder? He was the first guy on that committee to bring up the way the courts have been disregarding Congress yet he went along with his brethren and voted for both nominees.

[Justice Is Comin]

22. Congress,

first of all did not give Bush a by-proxy authority to do ANY surveillance on Americans in the IWR.

Second, if you get by that smell test, there is a statutory limitation, which sets a period, after which time you cannot no longer declare you are "at war." I forgot what the period is, but it's long long past.

This is a closed loop. Check and Mate. Watch Kennedy in the hearing.

[EFerrari]

26. This is Torquemada's parsing scam: reasonable basis

is NOT the same as probable cause. Probable cause is a much higher standard.

He won't get away with this -- probably no thanks to Specter.

[upi402]

23. k/r

[stop the bleeding]

28. This is starting to get interesting now, I remember reading these facts

a few days ago here at DU but to see the WAPO bring this piece into the forum really shows how much traction this is getting.:popcorn:

[Mossadeq]

29. Fuck the hearings

Just charge these bastards, cuff em, charge em, convict em, jail em.

Whats the hang up ? ..fuck these games.

[WilliamPitt]

30. Funny. I wrote about this just yesterday

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012506Y.shtml

[WiseButAngrySara]

32. Will, this is excellent and written with clarity. I hope the article has

been posted on DU. I'm so glad the WaPo will run a piece on this subject. I just can't take anymore of this (mal)administrations' abuse of power, criminal acts, and blatant hypocrisy. People won't wake up because the M$M panders to B*Co. What will it take?

[greiner3]

33. But hitler had his hands crossed at the time;

So it doesn't count :rofl:

[bush_is_wacko]

35. Yet another nail in the coffin. What I don't get is how they can continue

to make this assertion: "During separate appearances this week, Gonzales and Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the deputy intelligence chief, also said the legal requirements under FISA made it difficult for intelligence agents to act quickly enough in many cases."

Hire some more freaking staff if you can't write a warrant within 72 hours AFTER THE SURVEILLANCE HAS ALREADY STARTED!

The ONLY reason they aren't getting FISA warrants is because they KNOW FISA would either amend them or disallow them completely and the only reason FISA would disallow them is if they were ILLEGAL. VERY ILLEGAL. FISA does anything in their power to grant those warrants ESPECIALLY given 911. I'm sure they don't hesitate to side with the government in this post 911 atmosphere.

The "smoking gun" is the who, what , where, and when of those wiretaps. Congress will HAVE to get hold of all of that information and pour through them. Here's the freaking rub. They are all CLASSIFIED so Chimpy can attempt to limit who sees what and drag this out indefinitely. All the while his minions will be out attempting to sway the sheeple to write their elected officials and get them to drop it. How many thugs will roll over when they have truckloads of letters from the dumb-downed public?

[enough]

36. K&R

[Nothing Without Hope]

37. ***Earlier DU threads on DeWine's attempted amendment:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2389336
thread title (1-24-06 GD-P): R-Sen DeWine tried to eliminate essential part of FISA in June '02

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x230955
thread title (1-24-06 GD): THIS IS HUGE.....THANKS to Daily Kos

Glad to see the WaPo picking this up. Thanks!

[Nothing Without Hope]

38. ***Also in San Jose Mercury News - and credits blogger GLENN GREENWALD:

This is a Knight-Ridder newspaper, so the openness to truth isn't quite as surprising as with the "liberal" :sarcasm: WaPo. Still, good to see and worth a read.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13712083.htm
Posted on Wed, Jan. 25, 2006

In 2002, Justice Department said eavesdropping law working well

BY JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - A July 2002 Justice Department statement to a Senate committee appears to contradict several key arguments that the Bush administration is making to defend its eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without court warrants.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law governing such operations, was working well, the department said in 2002. A "significant review" would be needed to determine whether FISA's legal requirements for obtaining warrants should be loosened because they hampered counterterrorism efforts, the department said then.

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other top officials now argue that warrantless eavesdropping is necessary in part because complying with the FISA law is too burdensome and impedes the government's ability to rapidly track communications between suspected terrorists.

In its 2002 statement, the Justice Department said it opposed a legislative proposal to change FISA to make it easier to obtain warrants that would allow the super-secret National Security Agency to listen in on communications involving non-U.S. citizens inside the United States.

(snip)

The article credits blogger Glenn Greenwald as the finder of this glaring, ah, inconsistency by the Bushies. It gives a link to the blog containing Greenwald's posts on this issue:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com

Here are PERMALINKS to posts by Glenn Greenwald on the 2002 FISA statements:

"The Administration's new FISA defense is factually false"
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/administrations-new-fisa-defense-is.html

"Follow-up on the DeWine issue"
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/follow-up-on-dewine-issue.html

"The significance of the Administration's July, 2002 statements about FISA"
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/significance-of-administrations-july.html

He also has posted this piece on the need for bloggers to "fact-check" and the concerted portrayal of them as unreliable:
"Attacks on the blogosphere"
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/attacks-on-blogosphere.html

[fooj]

39. Kand R

Peace.