Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
CurEvents.com - A Global Current Events Discussion Forum - Bush-era surveillance went beyond wiretaps
Http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...0,1159123.story
Report: Bush-era surveillance went beyond wiretaps
A government report raises new questions about how the Bush White House kept key Justice officials in the dark about the post-Sept.
11 program.
By Josh Meyer
July 11, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The Bush administration's post-Sept.
11 surveillance efforts went beyond the widely publicized warrantless wiretapping program, a government report disclosed Friday, encompassing additional secretive activities that created "unprecedented" spying powers.
The report also raised new questions about how the Bush White House kept key Justice Department officials in the dark as it launched the surveillance program.
In a move that it described as "extraordinary and inappropriate," the report said the White House relied on a single, lower-level attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for assessments about the programs' legality.
The attorney, John Yoo, a young George W.
Bush appointee with close ties to the president's inner circle, wrote a series of memos legally blessing the program even though his superiors and most top officials were uninformed about it.
The report was compiled at the request of Congress by five government agency watchdogs: the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon, CIA, Directorate of National Intelligence and National Security Agency.
It represents the most detailed public disclosure of the existence of secret surveillance efforts beyond the warrantless wiretapping program, saying the overall package of efforts came to be known in the Bush administration as the "President's Surveillance Program."
However, the report did not describe the other programs or explain how they worked.
"All of these activities were authorized in a single presidential authorization," the report said, referring to the warrantless wiretapping as a "terrorist surveillance program" and the undisclosed efforts as "other intelligence activities."
"The specific details of the other intelligence activities remain highly classified," the report said.
The inspectors general interviewed more than 200 top officials and front-line agents in defense and intelligence agencies, and said views of the effectiveness of the warrantless wiretapping and other still- secret activities were mixed.
While many agents thought the efforts filled a gap in intelligence efforts, others "had difficulty evaluating the precise contribution of the President's Surveillance Program to counter-terrorism efforts because it was most often viewed as one source among many."
The inspectors general concluded that, even though Congress has adopted changes in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legalizing some of the activities, the information they produce "should be carefully monitored."
The report also provided a comprehensive and official narrative concerning the selective and often confrontational way in which the Bush administration sought and procured legal authorization for its post-Sept.
11 programs.
Eventually, the surveillance program and the Justice Department's role in it were so controversial that the deputy attorney general, James B.
Comey, and FBI Director Robert S.
Mueller III both threatened to resign in 2004 because they believed the program was illegal.
The dispute resulted in an infamous showdown that year in the hospital room of then-Atty.
Gen. John Ashcroft, when Comey raced up the hospital steps to prevent White House Counsel Alberto R.
Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew H.
Card Jr. from persuading the heavily medicated attorney general to sign off on an extension of the program.
Legal experts and lawmakers said the latest findings raised disturbing questions about the actions of the Bush administration and pointed to the need for ways to hold participants accountable.
"I am glad the American people can finally see for themselves what happens when a handful of senior officials -- who think they know better than the courts, the U.S.
Justice Department and Congress -- decide to rewrite the law in secret," said Senate Intelligence Committee member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
"This report allows the American people to see how senior Bush administration officials concocted the program first and came up with its creative legal justifications later."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J.
Leahy (D-Vt.) said the report added a sense of urgency to establishing a nonpartisan "commission of inquiry" to probe Bush administration programs.
President Obama opposes such a commission.
A former Bush administration official who participated in the program said the inspectors' report failed to take into account that the Justice Department and the White House at the time consistently argued that the president "has authority to conduct electronic surveillance to protect the national security from foreign threats, independent of Congress."
Speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political and legal sensitivity, the official said the programs resulted from concerns in the aftermath of Sept.
11.
Single Page | 1 | 2 | Next » (more at link.
M.)
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Mo-
This is getting VERY serious-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090712...ounterterrorism
AP sources: Cheney told CIA not to discuss program
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer Pamela Hess, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 17 mins ago
WASHINGTON Former Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA eight years ago not to inform Congress about a nascent counterterrorism program that CIA Director Leon Panetta terminated in June, officials with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.
Subsequent CIA directors did not inform Congress because the intelligence-gathering effort had not developed to the point that they believed merited a congressional briefing, said a former intelligence official and another government official familiar with Panetta's June 24 briefing to the House and Senate Intelligence committees.
Panetta did not agree.
Upon learning of the program June 23 from within the CIA, Panetta terminated it and the next day called an emergency meeting with the House and Senate Intelligence committees to inform them of the program and that it was canceled.
Cheney played a central role in overseeing the Bush administration's surveillance program that was the subject of an inspectors general report this past week.
That report noted that Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, personally decided who in Bush's inner circle could even know about the secret program.
But revelations about Cheney's role in making decisions for the CIA on whether to notify Congress came as a surprise to some on the committees, said another government official.
All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program publicly.
An effort to reach Cheney was unsuccessful.
A former intelligence official, who was familiar with former CIA Director Gen.
Michael Hayden's tenure at the CIA, said Hayden never communicated with the president or vice president about the now-canceled program and was under no restrictions from Cheney about congressional briefings.
The official said Hayden was briefed only two or three times on the program.
Exactly what the counterterrorism program was meant to do remains a mystery.
The former intelligence official said it was not related to the CIA's rendition, interrogation and detention program.
Nor was it part of a wider classified electronic surveillance program that was the subject of a government report to Congress this past week.
The official characterized it as an embryonic intelligence gathering effort, and only sporadically active.
He said it was hoped to yield intelligence that would be used to conduct a secret mission or missions in another country that is, a covert operation.
But it never matured to that point.
The government official with direct knowledge of the Panetta briefing and the former intelligence official said the CIA has numerous efforts ongoing under its existing authorities that have not yet been briefed to Congress.
He said they are not yet known to be viable for intelligence gathering.
The Cheney revelation comes as the House of Representatives is preparing to debate a bill that would require the White House to expand the number of members who are told about covert operations.
The White House has threatened a veto over concerns that wider congressional notifications could compromise the secrecy of the operations.
That provision, however, would have no effect on programs like this one.
The former intelligence official familiar with Hayden said Congress has a right to contemporaneous information about all CIA activities.
But he said there are so many in such early stages that briefing Congress on every one would be too time consuming for both the CIA and the congressional committees.
The New York Times initially reported about Cheney's direction not to tell Congress of the program on its Web site Saturday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Rogue CIA operations?
Surveillence that far exceeded what Bush had originally asked for?
And now a deliberate order by the VP at the time to the CIA NOT to divulge the info?
THis throws the Nancy Pelosi should have done something about the torture argument clearly out the window as the CIA was acting on orders from the WH not to divulge certain facts to the Committee and the Justice Dept????
Panetta is not my favorite person but is actions according to THIS story seem to have been what I expected from a CIA director - but why did it take until June 23 for him to find out about it???
Best Regards
Vog
I hope this news story doesn't just get brushed aside or marginalized.
It is an outrageous abuse of power.
It is a HUGE news story.
What we heard about previously was a violation of the constitution, and now we hear that their surveillance of US citizens actually went far beyond what we previously knew about on orders from the white house.
And now we hear Cheney ordered them not to tell congress.
It shouldn't be too late to reward Cheney for his actions with an impeachment.
And Cheney is happy to tell us all about it now with a smirk on his face.
Panetta most likely knew about this for a while but was trying put together a presentation that was air tight, as the Republicans will predictably attack him and the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael-
Quote: : It shouldn't be too late to reward Cheney for his actions with an impeachment.
It IS too late and would only incense the GOP even more.
I think some moderate GOP -ers might even agree that the Admin acted inappropriately if the entire story is told.
Quote: : And Cheney is happy to tell us all about it now with a smirk on his face.
**SIGH** C'mon Michael Cheney's body language and or facial expressions bear no impact on this discussion.
THAT being said - I wonder if his talking about it so extensively was a pre-emptive strike for him and his supporters - and yes Michael, his true supporters will stand by him no matter what.
Quote: : Panetta most likely knew about this for a while but was trying put together a presentation that was air tight, as the Republicans will predictably attack him and the story.
Panetta as CIA director has no dog in this fight so his presentation should only be factual and not based on any pre-conceived "attacks" by the GOP - therefore I have to ask again (in that light) why did it take so long for the Director to find out about it?
But what really is interesting me (now) is the information that AG Holder may pursue a torture investigation even after BO said awhile ago - "No".
Since the torture was executed by CIA and CIA subcontractors I have to think that perhaps there's a lot more to the CIA story than we are currently aware of.
And don't ever forget that "41" was CIA director for a year (76 to 77)under Ford - so he knows the inner workings of the organization.
And who was Chief of Staff for Ford from 75 to 77?
Dick Cheney.
There is way too much to comprehend here..
Best Regards
Vog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holder is on the verge of ordering a formal investigation, now;
This ought to be enough to force that outcome.
The outrages perpetrated by the previous Administration are absolutely astounding.
Start handing out the subpoenas, and watch the rats scramble to avoid being the last one off of the sinking ship.
Testimony under oath can be a remarkably persuasive instrument.
Cheney will be directly in the cross hairs, now;
That mf is going to find himself in a very difficult position, as this thing progresses.
I think that Holder's decision will be a watershed moment in American history.
I sincerely hope that he makes the right one.
And let the chips fall where they may.
I've been looking forward to this for a very long time, now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090712...mVpbnN0ZWluc3Vn
Feinstein suggests CIA concealment broke law
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Pete Yost, Associated Press Writer 43 mins ago
WASHINGTON Six months into Barack Obama's presidency, his Democratic allies are pushing for twin investigations into Bush-era torture and anti-terrorism policies.
Two senators including the head of the intelligence committee suggested Sunday that the prior administration broke the law by concealing a CIA counterterrorism program from Congress.
The assertion that Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the concealment came amid word that Attorney General Eric Holder is contemplating opening a criminal probe of possible CIA torture.
A move to appoint a criminal prosecutor is certain to stir partisan bickering that could prove a distraction to Obama's efforts to push ambitious health care and energy reform.
Obama has repeatedly expressed reluctance to probing alleged Bush-era abuses.
He resisted an effort by congressional Democrats to establish a "truth commission," saying the nation should be "looking forward and not backwards."
Regarding the 8-year-old counterterrorism program, the Bush administration's failure to notify Congress "is a big problem, because the law is very clear," said Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Congress should investigate the secrecy because "it could be illegal," Democratic Sen.
Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said.
According to Feinstein, CIA director Leon Panetta told Congress late last month that "he had just learned about the program, described it to us, indicated that he had canceled it and ...
Did tell us that he was told that the vice president had ordered that the program not be briefed to the Congress."
"We were kept in the dark.
That's something that should never, ever happen again," said Feinstein.
Feinstein said that she understands the need for strong countermeasures following the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks.
However, "I think you weaken your case when you go outside of the law," she added.
Sen.
John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he agreed with Feinstein that the CIA should keep Congress informed.
But Cornyn said the new assertion "looks to me suspiciously like an attempt to provide political cover" to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats.
Pelosi has accused the CIA of lying to her in 2002 about its use of waterboarding, or simulated drowning.
"This continued attack on the CIA and our intelligence gathering organizations is undermining the morale and capacity of those organizations to gather intelligence," said Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.
Reports about the counterterrorism program, Cheney's role in directing its existence be kept from Congress and the attorney general's consideration of a special prosecutor came on the eve of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
Regarding the Bush administration's conduct in the war on terror, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said that "I've always preferred my idea of a commission of inquiry to look at all these issues."
A Justice Department official told The Associated Press that Holder will decide in the next few weeks whether to appoint a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's harsh interrogation practices.
The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on a pending matter.
In response to the report, Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said Saturday that Holder planned to "follow the facts and the law" and noted that Holder has said that "it would be unfair to prosecute any official who acted in good faith based on legal guidance from the Justice Department."
Feinstein and Cornyn spoke on "Fox News Sunday." Durbin appeared on ABC's "This Week." Gregg spoke on CNN's "State of the Union." Leahy spoke on CBS's "Face the Nation."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This would be the perfect time for a GOP LEADER to come forth and agree to either a truth commission OR a special prosecutor to investigate whether or not Cheney's desire to keep this secret is legal or not.
The c aveat would be this:
If the testimony proves that Pelosi knew something and lied to US then she should be removed as speaker.
If it proves that Cheney lied AND/OR the surveillence program was illegal (not the one they previously determined WAS legal) then Cheney gets impeached AND arrested, as does Gonzales and the Justic Dept Lawyers who authorized it.
THe Dems have a LOT more to lose than the GOP does, and I agree with Cornyn that the timing IS suspicious.
So a PUB needs to come forward and suggest this otherwise, like Watergate, this drip drip drip of information will continue for months and months right up until....the mid terms Or even longer?
I don't know why they don't suggest this
Best Regards
Vog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama has repeatedly expressed reluctance to probing alleged Bush-era abuses.
He resisted an effort by congressional Democrats to establish a "truth commission," saying the nation should be "looking forward and not backwards."
I am inclined to agree with Obama.
Strip them of power and quit spending tax dollars on useless probes that won't benefit our country.
The folks with the ultimate responsibility will never be punished, since too many vocal Americans are willing to support anything that was done in the name of 'security'.
Hey Congress: Publish what you know, then go fix the economy and healthcare and infrastructure of our country.
While you are at it..
Abolish the CIA and the DHS and the DEA and quit wasting your time on sports and entertainment....
That would go a long way towards balancing the budget and make America a safer place to live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: : Obama has repeatedly expressed reluctance to probing alleged Bush-era abuses.
He resisted an effort by congressional Democrats to establish a "truth commission," saying the nation should be "looking forward and not backwards."
At the time he made that determination I agreed with him.
Remember - the Justice Dept is supposedly independent so a ruling on the constitutionality of the torture SHOULD have been seen by all as being challenge proof.
At the time
Now we have some evidence that supports the fact that a high ranking member of teh WH (Cheney) may have broken laws by keeping classified operations from the House and Senate Intel committees.
If there's a shred of truth to that Holder may be forced to investigate the whole thing.
He's required not to allow lawlessness at ANY level.
Best Regards
Vog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since Pelosi did not become speaker until 2006 and the report indicates the larger Surveillance program began in 2001, I fail to see the "political" motivation here.
The other red herring is the fact that because of National Security ( a ruse the Nixon white house loved) no one knows what information was imparted and what was not.
THe CIA claims it advised the congressional leadership but cannot say what they advised them of.
"I told you, Don't you remember.
" I do not buy it
But more importantly the CIA is prohibited by law from conducting domestic operations.
The big question is was the CIA conducting Surveillance within the United States and was that surveillence directed against american citizens.
If the agency was conducting domestic operations I have no doubt it failed to inform the congress.
The Director of the CIA was going to go to capitol hill and tell the congress it was operating outside of it's charter?
I am sure the CIA did that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Obama has repeatedly expressed reluctance to probing alleged Bush-era abuses.
He resisted an effort by congressional Democrats to establish a "truth commission," saying the nation should be "looking forward and not backwards."
I heard John McCain today say he agreed with Obama.
I don't think it is in the nation's best interest to go after people on the basis of the Bush two terms.
In many cases, they would be going after people who were following orders instead of the people giving the orders.
I think the Democrats would look vindictive and would look like they are grandstanding for votes in the next election.
The only valid point is we need to learn from past mistakes instead of continually repeating them.
In this case, checks and balances are built into our system of government.
For starters, we need to abolish the war powers vote process - not a part of the original constitution.
That opens the door to the white house extending its empowerment to a monarchy level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In many cases, they would be going after people who were following orders instead of the people giving the orders."
That's just not the case, and McCain knows it.
The Obama administration is already publicly on record in rejecting any approach to this that would result in the people who engaged in the interrogations being singled out for prosecution;
If they are going to go after anyone, they will go after the people who were instrumental in the construction of these programs.
That should probably constitute a fairly linear progression that will begin and end as a sort of closed loop, with the principals on each end probably being John Yoo and Dick Cheney.
Within the confines of this ad hoc, extralegal coterie will be just about everybody who had a direct hand in the design and construction of these various programs;
That would probably include the program that Panetta shut down, shortly after he took over as head of the CIA.
Apparently, the program that Panetta shut down was never really operational, in any case, but it would certainly be interesting to know how it was constituted, and who was chiefly responsible for it.
That Cheney was ordering the CIA around, while Michael Hayden was nominally in charge, is increasingly obvious, by now.
And if Bush was left entirely in the dark, with regard to at least some aspects of what was actually transpiring between the White House and the CIA, well, that would come as no surprise, actually;
"incurious" is a term that constantly materialized, when people talked about Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problem at all in going after Cheney and anyone else giving the orders.
What I have heard is the Cheney cannot now be impeached.
He now seems to be bragging about his abuses of power.
No one richly deserves a smack down more than Dick Cheney, the number one neo con in the Bush administration and probably the acting president, Dubya's Uncle Dick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|