At 10:15 AM ET, HOUSE JUDICIARY HEARING ON FISA

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

Wednesday 09/05/2007 - 10:15 AM
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Full Committee
Hearing on Warrantless Surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: The Role of Checks and Balances in Protecting Americans’ Privacy Rights

http://judiciary.house.gov/

If it isn't being aired on C-Span, it will be streamed at the above link.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. watch for some admin leak

that the arrests in the UK today were due to US domestic surveillance, and having to go to FISA even a week later would have prevented this success.

even if it is not true, the Admin has no shame when seeking the limelight to further its evil goals.

[spanone]

3. glad to know someone is as cynical as I am......it is probably true

[atreides1]

4. I think you mean Germany

There was an arrest of three men in Germany:

'The three suspects — two Germans, ages 22 and 28, and a 29-year-old Turk — first came to the attention of authorities because they had been caught observing a U.S. military facility in Hanau, near Frankfurt, at the end of 2006, officials said.

All three had undergone training at camps in Pakistan run by the Islamic Jihad Union, and had formed a German cell of the group, which officials said was influenced by al-Qaida.'


It would seem that this was a German internal operation, but I understand what you're saying about Bush taking credit even if the US wasn't involved.

On the down side for the little dictator wanna be, this operation was conducted by law enforcement and not by the military!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. ARE YOU TRYING TO FORCE FACTS DOWN MY THROAT?

What do you think I am, the president, or something?

geeze, louise.

Germany, UK, France, it all gets jumbled up over there, except for Poland. and they all speak funny and eat weird food.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

2. kick nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. Thanks for the heads up!

I would never have found this otherwise.

[mmonk]

6. Great

More pretend.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. I

agree with you. eom

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. Just finished watching it. Yes, more pretend. The advocates for civil

liberties on the panel said the same things they were always saying. The Bushbot, used scare tactics, and wishes for us to give up all our rights, spewed his venom.

There was No Reason At All to place the FISA Amendment on the floor for a vote in the first place, and frankly John Conyers, who I thought was one of our great hopes is just a shill.

[redirish28]

7. Why is it talking about Anti trust act and not on FISA?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. I think they had an early meeting on anti-trust. eom

[mod mom]

9. Hope they investigate the "1 Bomb Away from our Goal.." statement! This one:

Dick Cheney's top aide: "We're one bomb away" from our goal"


They literally decided they would break whatever laws they wanted -- one law after the next. Until they could "get rid of" that law altogether -- through the only tactic they know: exploitation of Terrorism -- they simply decided to violate it at will.

Goldsmith, now a Harvard Law Professor, has just written a book, to be released this month, criticizing and, in some cases, exposing for the first time, many of Bush's executive power abuses.......

Glenn Greenwald
Tuesday September 4, 2007 07:25 EST
Dick Cheney's top aide: "We're one bomb away" from our goal

........................

Two revelations in particular are extraordinary and deserve (but are unlikely to receive) intense media coverage. First, it was Goldsmith who first argued that the administration's secret, warrantless surveillance programs were illegal, and it was that conclusion which sparked the now famous refusal of Ashcroft/Comey in early 2004 to certify the program's legality. Goldsmith argued continuously about his conclusion with Addington, and during the course of those arguments, this is what happened:

..............................

Goldsmith shared the White House's concern that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act might prevent wiretaps on international calls involving terrorists. But Goldsmith deplored the way the White House tried to fix the problem, which was highly contemptuous of Congress and the courts. "We're one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious court," Goldsmith recalls Addington telling him in February 2004.


Their goal all along was to "get rid of the obnoxious FISA court" entirely, so that they could freely eavesdrop on whomever they wanted with no warrants or oversight of any kind. And here is Dick Cheney's top aide, drooling with anticipation at the prospect of another terrorist attack so that they could seize this power without challenge. Addington views the Next Terrorist Attack as the golden opportunity to seize yet more power. Sitting around the White House dreaming of all the great new powers they will have once the new terrorist attack occurs -- as Addington was doing -- is nothing short of deranged.

Contrary to the claims made by Bush and his followers ever since the NSA scandal arose, their real objective in secretly creating "The Terrorist Surveillance Program" was never to find a narrow means to circumvent FISA when, in those few cases, it impeded necessary eavesdropping. Rather, the goal was to get rid of FISA altogether and return the country to the days when our government could spy on us in total secrecy, with no oversight. Of course, until they could "get rid of" that law altogether -- through the only tactic they know: exploitation of Terrorism -- they simply decided to violate it at will.

More revealing still is Goldsmith's description of how the Bush administration systematically violated one law after the next -- employing tactics that are truly the hallmark of the most lawless third-world dictators:

In his book, Goldsmith claims that Addington and other top officials treated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act the same way they handled other laws they objected to: "They blew through them in secret based on flimsy legal opinions that they guarded closely so no one could question the legal basis for the operations," he writes.

Goldsmith's first experienced this extraordinary concealment, or "strict compartmentalization," in late 2003 when, he recalls, Addington angrily denied a request by the N.S.A.'s inspector general to see a copy of the Office of Legal Counsel's legal analysis supporting the secret surveillance program. "Before I arrived in O.L.C., not even N.S.A. lawyers were allowed to see the Justice Department's legal analysis of what N.S.A. was doing," Goldsmith writes.

-SNIP

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin

..........

more at:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/04/addington/index.html