That’s the knee jerk reaction by quite a number of members of Congress to the News that George Bush has been using all the powers at his disposal to try and deter another 9/11. As the President puts it…
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation’s inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn’t know they were here, until it was too late.
The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.
The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation’s top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.
The NSA’s activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA’s top legal officials, including NSA’s general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.
This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I’m the President of the United States.
[emphasis added - ed]
But, but, he can’t do that! He’s just making this up as he goes along!
Sorry, but thanks for playing, Congress-critters. Johnny, what parting gifts do we have for these fine upstanding elected officials that have trooped out to shout their outrage from the nearest camera ringed podium before getting their facts straight?
That’s right! how about a nice copy of Executive Order 12333* which has been laying around since the President signed it!
But, but, I don’t want to see that travesty that George Bush just discovered in his hankie after blowing his nose one day!!!!
Tut tut…let’s calm down…the President that signed 12333 would be Ronald Wilson Reagan. And it seems that in over 20 years, eight of which were, if I recall in excruciating detail, under a Democrat (and a doozie of a Dem, at that), everybody seemed just fine with the entire plan. Well, ok, you can use the ‘no issue to tough to ignore if it ain’t affecting the polls’ excuse for Bill. Heck, he ignored an entire genocide on his watch, so what’s one little piece of paper? Hell, Sandy Berger stuffs lots of those in his socks just for pre-meeting entertainment!
Well, it seems that Bush had a reason, and the stones, to actually, hold onto your hats kids…ya know use some of the tools of the US Government, at his disposal, to try and protect the American people from physical harm.
Da noive of da guy.
Actually, the announcement from the White House, and the President’s address, clear a lot of the ‘murkiness’ about the whole deal up for yours truly - he’s actually keyed in and used the verbiage that’s present in the relevant, existing documents - plus included a few details the Times seemed to miss in their naked exploitation of people willing to violate their oaths not to release classified information that could potentially cause grave damage to the United States of America to persons unauthorized to receive it. And yes, in case you were wondering, the entire staff of The New York Times falls into the ‘persons not authorized to receive it’ category.
The entire issue is pretty cut and dried to this blogger right now. The activities the President authorized were concepts on the books, that have been on the books for a looong time, are valuable tools for catching terrorists, are EXTREMELY sensitive in nature (as in if the bad guys know you’re doing it, they can avoid it). And if the methods are rendered useless, or off limits, most likely by the some of the same perpetually angry blowhards that would be screaming for someone’s scalp demanding to know why the terrorists weren’t stopped before they pull off their next major stateside stunt, and they succeed, then that would pretty well qualify as ‘exceptionally grave damage’.
A crime has been committed here. And the activities authorized by the President, nor his mere authorization of them, isn’t it.
The crime was the revelation of these activities to the reporters of the New York Times. The people that leaked this information should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, for Espionage AND Treason against the United States of America during a time of War.
And they should pray to God in Heaven, if they believe in him, that there isn’t a successful attack in this country that could have been averted by the program they just outed, if foolhardy, live for the sound-bite politicos manage to get it turned off. If that were the case, I for one would say they were excellent candidates for the death penalty.
It’s time the purveyors and cheerleaders of Plamegate got a dose of reality and take a look at what a leak damaging to national security really looks like.
And it’s time that some members of Congress either kick their staffs in the ass for not keeping them up on what’s ACTUALLY going on, or if they already have an inkling, pull their heads out of the arses and stop playing solely for the cameras.
Pay attention, kids…this is LIVE, not memorex.
(* h/t to Matt from Lone Tree)
::Update:: It may also be helpful for some to read this list of Frequently Asked Questions. Might be a good idea to surf around and read some of the other things on that site, as well. Warning: If you’re a lefty, or wearing a tinfoil hat, it may induce a fit of apoplexy. Just sayin.
December 17th, 2005 at 6:21 am
“It’s time the purveyors and cheerleaders of Plamegate got a dose of reality and take a look at what a leak damaging to national security really looks like. ”
Absolutely. The bastards in the MSM are traitors who regard themselves as being somehow above the laws that bind us mere peasants.
Time for a show trial or two.
December 17th, 2005 at 7:28 am
Keith - what laws have the press broken? I’m curious.
December 17th, 2005 at 9:22 am
biker:
18 USC 793
Courtesy http://yargb.blogspot.com/
December 17th, 2005 at 9:56 am
Keith, (as a former participant in such activities) I can tell you I still don’t see any classified information revealed. It is not that the program exists that is classified, it is how it does its business. There is nothing revealed that wasn’t already publicly available information (assuming you knew where to look for it). Would you kindly point out what you think was classified?
December 17th, 2005 at 10:45 am
We eavesdropped on the bad guys! Oh, my! — Part 2
(See my previous post here.) …. It’s past time for people from Bush on down to get heap highly pissed about what happened and do whatever it takes to keep it from happening again. Is it time for the NSA to start monitoring communications between CIA…
December 17th, 2005 at 10:49 am
“(See my previous post here.) …. It’s past time for people from Bush on down to get heap highly pissed about what happened and do whatever it takes to keep it from happening again. Is it time for the NSA to start monitoring communications between CIA and NYT employees? …”
December 17th, 2005 at 11:20 am
” I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.”
“This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security.”
” Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations.”
President Bush, in his speech.
I’ll just take the President’s word for it.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
The Real Scandal
President Bush delivered a very tough radio address responding to the controversy over the New York Times report on National Security Agency surveillance. The gist, according to Byron York at National Review’s The Corner: the surveillance program is …
December 17th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
So what you’re saying is, you don’t know. If you don’t know, then why do you have a problem?
December 17th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
Sigh….. Biker, I’m saying nothing of the sort. When I need you to tell me what I know, I’ll make it so obvious even you will get the message.
It’s not my job to spell it out for you–if you’re too thick to read the relevant documents, I’d suggest remedial teaching.
If too lazy, I suggest you get off your ass and do the work, as I did.
December 17th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Keith, I am a former USAF intel collector/reporter. I am VERY experienced and well educated in these matters. Maybe you should even forget that I’m the “hat tip” in WR’s post. I’m telling you that no crime has been committed. If you can prove otherwise, I’d really like to know. I’m not being thick. I’m telling you, no crime has been committed.
December 17th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
biker, people at the NSA leaked information to the NYT. That’s a Federal crime, regardless of what the information was.
The NYT sat on the info for about a year. That’s also a crime, being in possession of leaked documents concerning national security operations.
December 17th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
I also worked in intel and I’m damn sure that even the contents of the office cookie jar were regarded as classified, unless graded otherwise.
December 17th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Yet another comment–please ignore the previous, it looks as though I’m very probably wrong.
Not for the first time and no doubt not the last. :o)
December 17th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
ok PB, you’ve kept repeating, as a mantra almost, ‘there was no crime, show me the crime’. Well, here ya go - recall, if you will that even the revelation of who was being looked at with interest (as in, which countries, and by extensions groups, such as trans-national terrorists) was, magic word here, classified. Concrete example - sittin in a bar, with Fred the plumber, and some guy that used to do a certain type of work starts a story “Yeah, and there was this time I was flyin off the coast of East Bodickia”. As Emerile would put it “BAM”!!! Just because Fred the plumber doesn’t write it up for the NYT doesn’t negate the reason for a flag on the play.
To have spoken to the NYT reporters on the subject of who was being looked at was, therefore, an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. And probably quite likely just the tip of the classified information discussed and or/ possibly even provided, in order to establish the bona fides of either the story, or the individuals involved’s ability to relate it.
Basically “sources and methods”, which is usually a MAJOR determinant to assigning classification protection to specific information. And the Times article just absolutely reeks of a disclosure of both. The minor semantic of pointing out that certain specific information did not make the final edit of the story that was published ignores the niggling problem of the fact that the discussions took place with the reporter (non cleared individual), this information was reviewed by the editors (more non-cleared individuals), and was included in information relayed to the White House for comment, some of which they requested not be included (which is a pretty good indication that it was sensitive, i.e., classified).
Now, if ya wanna insist that you can’t say that the thing that just thumped the back of your cranium was a two by four, despite that it left a divot measuring in one dimension approximately two inches, and another of approximately four inches, with a slight pine resin odor, please go right ahead.
Looked at another way, consider it all highly circumstantial. Grand juries have been seated, and indictments drawn against individuals for circumstantial cases of much less apparent substance than this.
And so far, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and it’s left some webbed footed prints behind…
December 17th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
“highly circumstantial”
remember those words, baldy.
I’m sorry, without the specific targeting information or the specific method, it’s bupkes. No disclosure. The source may or may not have given anything to the Times, but if it’s not classified in the final print version you don’t yet have a crime. What’s classified in that story? Nothing. So, empanel your grand jury but you still can’t get a warrant for that news room or those reporters notes until you’ve exhausted all other methods.
So, the Times publishes a non-issue story that’s only meant to help sell the author’s book and the administration capitalizes on it. Why? Because something really happened or they want to use it to shake up the NSA and CIA? By law, who do they have to investigate first? It isn’t the Times.
Non-issue. Where’s your disclosure?
Think of all the investigating they did on Tom Clancy when he first started writing. What did they find? Just a smart guy who did his reading.
You know, one day we gotta finish putting together this go-kart sitting in my garage.
December 17th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
I can’t believe I’m defending the Times, of all things.
December 17th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
I can’t either, other than to note you dead tree media types sure stick together! ;)
As I mentioned, the ‘no publish, no foul’ argument you’re putting forth just doesn’t hold water. And in this case, it seems that there is targetting info (i.e. e-mails and phones/cell phones). If you want to get ridiculous and quibble that it ain’t details unless the technical information is specified to x number of places after the decimal, g’head.
A flag on the play is still in order.
December 17th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
I quibble. You know I’m right. “email” and “phones” isn’t technical data. It’s long been public that the Fort has the capability to exploit various aspects of these systems.
December 17th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
“you know I’m right”
no, I know you’re wrong.
ah, the hubris of the MSM….
December 18th, 2005 at 2:38 am
Who was it who counseled me about old school definitions and overly cautious operators who were too afraid to come close to re-interpreting or even skitting the line of the regulations? Oh yeah, that would be you. This is that case. You can’t argue with me when I tell you that I pushed every regulation I could to the maximum. I walked the front line of tactical disclosure and you know it. You and I both know exactly what level of classification the government is talking about when the words “damage”, “serious damage” or “grave harm” are used. Now, go back to the times story and you tell me what in that story fits those levels of classification.
December 18th, 2005 at 3:41 am
Dragging in the issue of interagency sharing of information (that is, dissemination within the government to people on a need to know basis, cause, well, they ‘need to know’ to do their jobs) takes this off on a tangent to chase a straw man. Full disclosure, yes, I have, and still do argue against excessive ’super secret squirrel’ games within and between government agencies - railing against ‘the wall’ as the 9-11 commission called it.
Insisting that the verbatim content of what was published in the Times article is the be all end all crux of what occurred also avoids the issue - and that is that people that signed non-disclosure agreements talked, apparently rather freely, about a highly sensitive and classified program, with people unauthorized to recieve the information discussed.
Now, based upon what was contained in the article, and the reaction of the administration (i.e. the specific words the president used in his radio address, which you should be well aware are the legal, hot button phrases), to insist that I sit down, in a public venue, go over chapter and verse, line by line, a superfuous press article, instead of the actual information discussed between source and reporter, and without the relevant classification guidelines readily at hand, is ludicrous.
But based upon what was included in the published article, coupled with the information that the Times was waved off from publishing certain info they possessed, because it was classified, well, you don’t have to have a physics PHD to extrapolate that 2 +2 = 4.
Heck, even a whole River of Sundays could see the obvious on this one.
December 18th, 2005 at 4:13 am
I don’t know about your non-disclosure agreement, but mine is exclusive to classified information. I’m still not seeing any. And just because information is “sensitive” or “timely” doesn’t make it classified.
Your argument is specious and conjecture at best. You don’t see any classified in the Times story, you assume that because the reporter declined to include parts that he was asked not to that those parts must have been classified, and yet you don’t know what wasn’t there. puh-leeze
You just want to go fishing because you feel someone has betrayed the trust. Whatever, bart.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:32 am
The President said: “This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security”
If he is correct that the program’s existence itself was classified does revealing the program’s existence violate the nondisclosure obligations of those aware of it? If they do disclose it to persons who are not authorized and have no need to know about it is that a criminal act under the law governing secuity classifications?
The fact that the Executive Order originally was signed by Reagan will just make the liberals madder. They have never forgiven him for being right when they were wrong, and they anathematize all his works. The Democrats can argue, quite plausibly, that the Executive Order wasn’t revoked during the Clinton Administration only because it was overlooked, since Clinton and his advisors were not paying attention to national security stuff. That will get them off the hook for maintaining this EO for eight years under Bill and Hillary.