NSA adviser General James Jones suggests Cheney uninformed on national security

Oh this is pretty. Countdown to Mini Dick Lizzie coming to Pappy's rescue... 3...2...1...

Washington (CNN) – One of President Obama’s top national security advisers suggested Sunday that former Vice President Dick Cheney, a persistent critic of the Obama administration on national security issues, might not be informed enough to criticize the White House.

Asked on CNN’s State of the Union about Cheney’s criticism of the way Obama has chosen to fight terrorism and treat terrorism suspects, national security adviser James Jones replied, “Well, you know, if it’s informed, then that’s one thing.”

Jones, a retired Marine general, continued, “It’s important that people understand that we have a sitting vice president [Joe Biden] who’s very much involved in the day-to-day operations of our national security. He’s a member of the national security council. He has access to all of the information.”

Google to enlist NSA to help it ward off cyberattacks

About damn time. I've been saying since 9/11 that the government should have gone straight to Microsoft after the attack and told them to design a program that would integrate all the various agencies in a cohesive way yet gave them that "stand alone" vibe that they covet. And told Bill Gates that it was a freebie for his country. Not using these resources is the crime.

The world's largest Internet search company and the world's most powerful electronic surveillance organization are teaming up in the name of cybersecurity.

Under an agreement that is still being finalized, the National Security Agency would help Google analyze a major corporate espionage attack that the firm said originated in China and targeted its computer networks, according to cybersecurity experts familiar with the matter. The objective is to better defend Google -- and its users -- from future attack.

Google and the NSA declined to comment on the partnership. But sources with knowledge of the arrangement, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the alliance is being designed to allow the two organizations to share critical information without violating Google's policies or laws that protect the privacy of Americans' online communications. The sources said the deal does not mean the NSA will be viewing users' searches or e-mail accounts or that Google will be sharing proprietary data.

ABC News Exclusive: NSA Head Says President Obama Having Greater Success Taking Terrorists Out of Commission Than Bush

Suck. On. That. Dick. This is just an excerpt, go read the whole thing.

Responding to criticism from former Vice President Cheney that President Obama is making the nation more vulnerable to terrorism, the president’s National Security Adviser, Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.), told ABC News in an exclusive interview that actually the reverse is true: President Obama’s greater success with international relations has meant more terrorists put out of commission.

“This type of radical fundamentalism or terrorism is a threat not only to the United States but to the global community,” Jones said. “The world is coming together on this matter now that President Obama has taken the leadership on it and is approaching it in a slightly different way – actually a radically different way – to discuss things with other rulers to enhance the working relationships with law enforcement agencies – both national and international."

Jones said that “we are seeing results that indicate more captures, more deaths of radical leaders and a kind of a global coming-together by the fact that this is a threat to not only the United States but to the world at-large and the world is moving toward doing something about it.”

Ex-Senator Graham: Cheney, CIA Lied to Congress About Domestic Spying

By GottaLaff

Jason Leopold is reviving some of his reporting to show the parallels between Then and Now. One day, hopefully soon, this will explode in BushCo's faces:

In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on Dec. 15, 2005 - after the New York Times disclosed the existence of the warrantless wiretapping program - Graham said he attended meetings in Vice President Dick Cheney's office and discussed surveillance activities, but added that neither Cheney nor then-National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden spoke about a plan to spy on Americans. (CIA Director George Tenet also took part in the meeting.)

"The issue was whether we could intercept foreign communications when they transited through U.S. communication sites," Graham said. "The assumption was that if we did that, we would do it pursuant to the law, the law that regulates the surveillance of national security issues. ...

"There was no suggestion that we were going to begin eavesdropping on United States citizens without following the full law. There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to use that as the subterfuge to begin unwarranted, illegal - and I think unconstitutional - eavesdropping on American citizens."

Graham suggested that Cheney and the intelligence officials had lied to him and other members of congressional intelligence panels.

Cheney and other Bush administration officials - aided by Republican lawmakers - responded to Graham's comments with a fierce counterattack, much like they are doing now against Pelosi. In another "Nightline" interview on Dec. 18, 2005, Cheney said Graham, as well as other members of Congress knew that the administration intended to spy on the phone calls of some Americans.

"He knew," Cheney said. "I sat in my office with Gen. Hayden, who was then the head of NSA, who's now the deputy director of the National Intelligence Directorate, and he [Graham] was briefed as long as he was chairman of the committee, or ranking member of the committee." [...]

Graham said he did attend briefings on the two other dates but he told the Washington Post "there was no discussion of anything [about spying on Americans' telephone calls] in the meeting with Cheney." [...]

The dispute then is nearly identical to the one now playing out in Congress about a similar document cited by the CIA supposedly showing top Democrats receiving briefings about the Bush administration's torture program.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

H/t: The Joshua Blog

Where Were the NSA Watchdogs?

By GottaLaff

There is so much sludge that could be dredged up. How much will eventually be revealed:

David Nather: "The disclosure of Rep. Jane Harman's intercepted conversation with a suspected Israeli agent has created reactions on multiple fronts. But one of the most overlooked angles has a deeper significance: Lawmakers who were supposed to provide oversight of the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program reportedly tried to keep the public from knowing about it."

Jane Harman: Release alleged calls, uncensored; "This abuse of power is outrageous"

By GottaLaff

Jane Harman calls their bluff:

Rep. Jane Harman (D) today sent Attorney General Eric Holder a letter demanding that any transcripts of intercepted calls be released -- uncensored -- so that she can verify her claim that she never discussed a quid-pro-quo deal, as has been alleged by CQ and the New Times.

She also wants an investigation into NSA intercepts of members of Congress -- and what she calls "selective leaks."[...]

Here's her letter...

Dear General Holder:

I am outraged to learn from reports leaked to the media over the last several days that the FBI or NSA secretly wiretapped my conversations in 2005 or 2006 while I was Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Committee.

This abuse of power is outrageous and I call on your Department to release all transcripts and other investigative material involving me in an unredacted form. It is my intention to make this material available to the public.

I also urge you to take appropriate steps to investigate possible wiretapping of other Members of Congress and selective leaks of investigative material which can be used for political purposes. As you know, it is entirely appropriate to converse with advocacy organizations and constituent groups, and I am concerned about a chilling effect on other elected officials who may find themselves in my situation.

Let me be absolutely clear: I never contacted the Department of Justice, the White House or anyone else to seek favorable treatment regarding the national security cases on which I was briefed, or any other cases. You may be aware that David Szady, the FBI's former top counterintelligence official, is quoted in the media saying of me "…in all my dealings with her, she was always professional and never tried to intervene or get in the way of any investigation."

Sincerely,
JANE HARMAN

Jane Harman Caught on Wiretap Promising to Intervene for AIPAC

Taegan boils it down, but Josh has more here. Let's see if the media gives this the scrutiny it deserves.

According to CQ Politics, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

In return, the agent pledged to help lobby House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, Harman hung up after saying, "This conversation doesn't exist."

Feinstein Launches Probe on NSA Wiretapping

By GottaLaff

Roll Call is subscription only, so this is all I could get:

The Senate Intelligence Committee is launching an investigation into a New York Times report that the National Security Agency overstepped its authority to conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens through the use of domestic wiretaps.

And there's this from the L.A. Times:

Justice curbs NSA over surveillance

The Justice Department has reined in electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency after finding the agency had improperly accessed American phone calls and e-mails. The problems were discovered during a review of intelligence activities, the Justice Department said in a statement.

Now back to our regular wiretapping already in progress.

Illegal wiretaps + President Obama = What are they thinking?

By GottaLaff

Via BuzzFlash, an excellent summary of something that has really gotten under my skin:

Illegal wiretapping cases could spell trouble for President Obama. What can the Obama Administration be thinking?

At the Obama presidential campaign website, barackobama.com, a page titled "Plan to Change Washington" describes problems in government and then presents "The Obama/Biden Plan" to correct such problems. Here's the section on the problem of government secrecy:

Secrecy Dominates Government Actions: The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the "state secrets" privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court.

But then in the section on Obama's planned solutions, the state-secrets legal tool doesn't come up again. Was that an oversight or a deliberate omission? Was there actually no Obama/Biden plan to challenge or curtail the state-secrets claim that the Bush administration used so often? It seems so.[...]

To summarize, the DOJ wants to allow the NSA to keep doing unrestricted electronic surveillance; the DOJ wants to keep the NSA's secret documents from being used in court; and they want the Jewel v. NSA case thrown out. The EFF wants Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable invasion of privacy upheld for American citizens. They want the case to be heard. They seek to stop what they call the government's "iillegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance ... of millions of Americans." As Ken Bankston told BuzzFlash, the EFF "believes and alleges" that the NSA is viewing and analyzing the transactional information, but also the contents, of "practically everyone's" emails and phone calls illegally. And the "wholesale surveillance" continues on President Barack Obama's watch. [...]

[B]ut what of the political side to this story? Many Obama supporters are losing faith. [...]

Will President Obama be able to restore that loss of faith, or even try? Doesn't he realize his base is boiling mad about domestic spying and warrantless wiretaps? The disconnect between campaign rhetoric and courtroom maneuvering is a problem the President must confront -- on this issue as well as on others.

Domestic spying is not a progressive value, or even a centrist or conservative value. It's a breach of the inalienable 4th Amendment rights of all Americans.

Please go read the post in full. This is the one Obama administration position that not only greatly concerns me, it's one that I would actively campaign against. I need a talking down, A.S.A.P.

Federal government's cybersecurity coordinator resigns

By GottaLaff

The NSA v. Rod Beckstrom. Guess who won:

The resignation of the federal government's cybersecurity coordinator highlights a power struggle underway over how best to defend the government's civilian computer networks against digital attacks.

Rod A. Beckstrom resigned the post Friday after less than a year on the job, citing a lack of funding and the National Security Agency's tightening grip on government cybersecurity matters.

Beckstrom is director of the National Cyber Security Center -- an organization created last March to help coordinate such security efforts across the intelligence community. But recently, Beckstrom said, efforts have been underway to fold his group into a facility at the NSA.

Beckstrom said in an interview over the weekend that his group was formed to coordinate the various agencies' efforts but not to be controlled by NSA.

"This is a coordination body and it resides alongside or above the other centers, but certainly not below them," Beckstrom said. "In my view, it is very important that there be independence for the [center], and that it be able to carry out its role."

The Obama administration is in the midst of a 60-day review of the government's cybersecurity initiative, with recommendations on next steps expected sometime next month.

Philip Lieberman, president of Lieberman Software, a Los Angeles-based security software maker, said the new administration faces a tough job balancing privacy and civil liberties issues with the real need to help secure the Internet, a major engine of the world's economic activity. [...]

Beckstrom said he decided to leave roughly 10 days ago, after learning that orders were canceled for computers, network equipment, furniture and office space in Arlington slated for his group. While he officially reports to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Beckstrom said he has not yet had a meeting with her.

"Once you lose your space, have no money and no chance to meet with your boss, and decisions are being made about your future with no consultation, it's time to go," Beckstrom said.

A former Silicon Valley entrepreneur and author with no government experience, Beckstrom was seen as an unorthodox pick by many Washington insiders. "He brought a completely different perspective, which in one way could have been his undoing," said a senior member of the intelligence community, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The Bush administration created Beckstrom's office shortly after it launched the "comprehensive national cyber security initiative," an effort to help shield government networks from online attack.

Court of Appeals Denies DOJ Attempt to Hide Evidence of Warrantless Wiretapping

By GottaLaff

An appeals court disagrees with the Obama Department of Justice on the subject of wiretapping:

A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco today rejected the Obama Justice Department’s attempt to continue to conceal evidence of warrantless wiretapping. [...]

[T]he government filed an emergency appeal last week hoping to halt the release of documents showing that the National Security Agency, under President George W. Bush, had secretly wiretapped the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation [...] Al-Haramain and its lawyers, who claim they were also wiretapped, need the documents (which they’ve already seen because the government released it accidentally) to proceed with their lawsuit against government officials.

Today, they got a significant step closer. [...]

The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to consider the emergency appeal is significant because it also leaves the district court’s ruling in effect. The lower court had rejected the government’s argument that the “state secrets privilege” allows executive agencies to disregard the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Kit Bond's remarks about Holder? Not so fast, say Sen's. Leahy, Whitehouse

By GottaLaff

Punk'd... or should I say, misled. And I was never happier to be talked down:

The implication of the piece is fairly clear: Holder promised Bond to eschew prosecutions, and Bond promised not to block his nomination. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- which approved Holder today -- strongly denied that such an exchange could have occurred.

"It would be completely wrong if a senator said, 'I'll vote for you if you promise to withhold prosecution of a crime'," Leahy told me. "No senator would make a request like that. It'd be improper."

"Maybe Governor [Rod] Blagojevich [D-IL]" would have sought such an assurance, Leahy quipped. He never specifically referenced Bond, who declined to answer questions about the Times piece while leaving the Senate chamber this afternoon.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a Judiciary panel member and former federal prosecutor, had a similar response when questioned about the likelihood of Holder making the "assurances" that Bond believes were offered.

"It sounds a little improbable ... it's, frankly, improper for members of Congress to demand [a pre-determinative stance on] prosecutions."

Sounds like the Times report should be taken with a full shaker of salt.

Improper is an understatement. Even if it was inaccurate, let's keep our fingers crossed that Holder isn't even thinking in the direction of the Times' report.

However, Ellen Ratner's reporting is usually pretty good, so the question of Rove's "executive privilege" is still a problem.

H/t: Eve

True or False: Holder assures GOP on interrogation prosecution and telecom immunity

By GottaLaff

UPDATE: Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse dismiss this as bunk.

Original post:

How can one make a decision to prosecute or not prosecute before one investigates and has seen the evidence? Granted, this piece is from the Washington Times, but.... If accurate, this would be politicizing the legal system, which was BushCo's M.O. It better not be Holder's:

Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in an interview with The Washington Times that he will support Eric H. Holder Jr.'s nomination for Attorney General because Mr. Holder assured him privately that Mr. Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program.

Mr. Holder's promise apparently was key to moving his nomination forward. [...]

Sen. Bond also said that Mr. Holder told him in a private meeting Tuesday that he will not strip the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the National Security Agency after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks of retroactive legal immunity from civil lawsuits--removing another potential sticking point among GOP senators.

In the interview Wednesday, Mr. Bond said, "I made it clear that trying to prosecute political leaders would generate a political firestorm the Obama administration doesn't need."

He added, "I was concerned about previous statements he made and others had made. He gave me assurances that he would not take those steps that would cause major disruptions in our intelligence system or cause political warfare. We don't need that kind of political warfare. He gave me assurances he is looking forward." [...]

Mr. Holder made a similar point to senators last week in a little-noticed written response to questions from Republican senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas. Mr. Holder indicated that he would not prosecute any intelligence officers who participated in the interrogation program and who had followed Justice Department guidance.

Prosecutorial and investigative judgments must depend on the facts and no one is above the law, Mr. Holder wrote. But where it is clear that a government agent has acted in 'reasonable and good faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions' authoritatively permitting his conduct, I would find it difficult to justify commencing a full blown criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution.

The legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union, Caroline Fredrickson, said Wednesday that she was alarmed by Mr. Bond's statements and was hoping, Kit Bond is not stating this in the way that Mr. Holder stated it to him. She added, We are hoping there will be a clarification. It would be extraordinary if our top prosecutor, before taking office, would have predetermined whether or not to pursue certain cases because of political pressure.[...]

Mr. Specter called "satisfactory" Mr. Holder's statements that interrogation techniques authorized by legal opinions would provide a strong cover from prosecutions. According to Mr. Specter, Mr. Holder could not make any more explicit statements without knowing the facts of specific cases.

According to Ellen Ratner (of Talk Radio News Service) on Thom Hartmann just now, Holder is also caving on the question of Karl Rove's claims of "executive privilege".

Thom Hartmann's reaction to the Rove matter: We have to put the pressure on these guys. Yes, and the pressure better be enormous. This is not acceptable.

H/t: Fernando

So much for that smooth transition: DOJ blocks Obama transition team from reviewing wiretap, torture documents

By GottaLaff

Via Think Progress:

According to the Blog of Legal Times, the Justice Department is blocking President-elect Obama’s agency review team’s request “to review classified legal opinions related to secret CIA and National Security Agency programs.” Included in these documents are the “legal rationale of the NSA’s warrantless spying program and the CIA’s detention and interrogation policies, among other intelligence initiatives.” According to a senior Justice Department official, they are “reluctant to provide the opinions to Obama’s team without permission from the two intelligence agencies whose activities they address.” (HT: Daily Kos and Talk Left)

So much for those promises of cooperation.

US President George Bush today publicly congratulated Barack Obama on his historic victory and vowed "complete co-operation" as the first black US president moves into the White House. [...]

"I told the President-elect he can count on complete co-operation from my Administration as he makes the transition to the White House," said the outgoing President, whose second four-year term ends on January 20.

True to form.

Whistleblower: U.S. Snooped on Tony Blair, Iraqi President (including pillow talk)

By GottaLaff

Too much information... literally:

A former communications intercept operator says U.S. intelligence snooped on the private lives of two of America's most important allies in fighting al Qaeda: British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Iraq's first interim president, Ghazi al-Yawer.

David Murfee Faulk told ABCNews.com he saw and read a file on Blair's "private life" and heard "pillow talk" phone calls of al-Yawer when he worked as an Army Arab linguist assigned to a secret NSA facility at Fort Gordon, Georgia, between 2003 and 2007.

Classy, huh?

"If it is true that we maintained a file on Blair, it would represent a huge breach of the agreement we have with the Brits," said one former CIA official.

In the case of the former Iraqi president, al-Yawer, Faulk says his "pillow talk" phone calls were to his fiancé, whom he later married. Faulk says the calls were intercepted by operators in the NSA facility at Ft. Gordon, Back Hall, and posted on the computer system for others to read about and hear.

Faulk described the al-Yawer calls as "courting, wooing and pillow talk" with an Iraqi woman he would later marry Nasrin Barwari, the minister of public works in the interim government.

Remember when we had a Constitution? Yeah, me too:

The Inspector General for the NSA is reported to be conducting an investigation into the allegations by Faulk and another former military intercept operator, Adrienne Kinne, about listening to calls between American citizens.

The Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees also are investigating the allegations about calls involving American citizens.

Trust, schmust.

January 20, 2009.

MUST WATCH VIDEO-- ABC: NSA ‘Routinely’ Listened In On Americans’ Phone Calls, Shared Sexy "cuts"

By GottaLaff

The video finally loaded.

Back story here.

ABC: NSA ‘Routinely’ Listened In On Americans’ Phone Calls, Shared Sexy "cuts"

By GottaLaff

Remember the U.S. Constitution? Sure you do. It's chock full of laws and rights and stuff, ones that we actually used to respect and live by. Maybe someone could explain it to the despicable, very impeachable Liar in Chief:

Ever since President Bush confirmed the existence of a National Security Administration wiretapping program in late 2005, he has insisted it is aimed only at terrorists’ calls and protects Americans’ civil liberties. [...]

However, ABC News reports that the NSA frequently listened to and transcribed the private phone calls of Americans abroad, according to two former military intercept operators. These conversations included those of American soldiers stationed in Iraq and American aid workers abroad, such as Doctors Without Borders:

[Former Navy Arab linguist David Murfee] Faulk says he and others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of “cuts” that were available on each operator’s computer.

“Hey, check this out,” Faulk says he would be told, “there’s good phone sex or there’s some pillow talk, pull up this call, it’s really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, ‘Wow, this was crazy’,” Faulk told ABC News. […]

“We knew they were working for these aid organizations,” [former Army Reserves Arab linguist Adrienne] Kinne told ABC News. “They were identified in our systems as ‘belongs to the International Red Cross’ and all these other organizations. And yet, instead of blocking these phone numbers we continued to collect on them,” she told ABC News.

Kinne called Bush’s assurances that the U.S. was only tracking phone calls of a “known al Qaeda suspect” “completely a lie.”

More here. And I'll post the video as soon as it allows me to load it.

ACLU suing the NSA over FISA law

By GottaLaff

UPDATE: Want to take action? Go here to do this:

Add Your Name to the ACLU's Newspaper Ad.
We want Congress to stand up for our freedom, but they keep caving in to fear mongering! Help the ACLU spell it out for them.
he ACLU is preparing to challenge the unconstitutional FISA Amendments Act in court and protect your right to privacy.

In addition, the ACLU will be taking out a full-page ad in a major national newspaper announcing the lawsuit and expressing outrage at this abandonment of our Constitutional principles. Their goal is to run an ad containing the names of tens of thousands of Americans who believe in the Constitution and want Congress to hear our message loud and clear: next time, stand up for our rights.

There has never been a more important moment to demonstrate to our leaders that we believe in freedom – not fear.

Liveblogging: Thom Hartmann interviewing Director of the Washington Legislative office of the ACLU Caroline Fredrickson:

Caroline: The ACLU is suing the government. The bill is the same bill, with cosmetic adjustments. We're filing a lawsuit this afternoon.

We're suing the NSA, the agency that implements. The NSA and CIA weren't supposed to be into domestic surveillance, but it's become more muddled over the past few years, and now they're involved... including the Defense Department... infiltrating peace groups, etc. It's hard to separate the agencies now.

Thom: The harms, the assaults to the Constitution (so many, Thom listed them, like the repeal of habeas corpus)... ?

Caroline: It will be hard to re-mediate these things. No matter who is president, it will take a lot to turn these things around. Unless we raise our voices very, very loud, we won't be able to fix this mess.

Thom: I am voting for Obama, no question, but we should never blindly follow the Democratic party, we need to speak out. At least Obama put his position on his website and allows for discussion of it, vs. John McCain.