By GottaLaff
[C]omments by Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency and the CIA, that the Gang of Eight was "fully" briefed on the TSP prompt me to disclose, for the first time, what they were like.Remember, John Yoo was one of the exclusive fraternity that created law, as in "Torture Memos" (all my related posts on torture, detainee mistreatment, military commissions, etc. here).
In virtually every meeting, Hayden would present PowerPoint "slides," walking us through the operational details of the TSP [Terrorist Surveillance Program]. The program has since been described, in part, as one that intercepted communications to and from the U.S. in an effort to uncover terrorist networks and prevent or disrupt attacks. We were told that the program was the centerpiece of our counter-terrorism efforts, legal and yielding impressive results.
Often present were CIA officials (including then-Director George Tenet) and then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales. Missing was any Justice Department presence -- a tipoff, in retrospect, to the legal limbo under which the program operated. [...]
It is now clear to me that we learned only what the briefers wanted to tell us -- even though they were required by law to keep us "fully and currently informed." Absent the ability to do any independent research, it did not occur to me then that the program was operated wholly outside of the framework Congress created as the exclusive means to conduct such surveillance: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Nor did I know that the Justice Department was cut out of the process, and that one lawyer, John Yoo, had drafted the internal memo justifying the TSP under the president's Article 2 authorities. A new head of the Office of Legal Counsel repudiated that memo, citing the "shoddiness" of the legal reasoning. [...]
While our country had experienced the worst terrorist attack in our history, the Orwellian solution conjured up by a small group in the Bush administration was to shred our laws and Constitution in order to save us -- a false and unnecessary choice. [...]
The House and Senate intelligence authorization bills would require increased notification, including, in the House bill, information on lawfulness, cost, benefit and risk. The White House has issued a veto threat, citing constitutional concerns. Surely both sides -- and policy -- would profit more from a robust partnership.
This sleazy little club would concoct flimsy, tortured legal memos that were binding, and they would do so under the radar, excluding anybody whose input should have been seriously considered, even required. If anybody dared challenge them, they would be loudly and abruptly cut short and/or paid lip service and ignored.
Jane Mayer goes into great detail about this in her book The Dark Side.
I have two words for BushCo: Screw Yoo.
.jpg)