[NYTr] Ray McGovern - NSA's Illegal Spying: What Did Pelosi Know?

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Consortium News - Oct 15, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/101407a.html

NSA Spying: What Did Pelosi Know?

By Ray McGovern

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has admitted knowing for several years about
the Bush administration’s eavesdropping on Americans without a court
warrant. She said she was briefed on it when she was ranking Democrat
on the House Intelligence Committee. But was she told that the illegal
surveillance began well before 9/11?

Referring to her briefing in an apologia-sans-apology Washington Post
op-ed on Jan. 15, 2006, she wrote: “This is how I came to be informed
of President Bush’s authorization for the NSA to conduct certain types
of surveillance.”

Demonstrating her unconstitutionally subservient attitude toward the
Executive Branch, Pelosi wrote:

“But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is
not seeking approval. There is a clear expectation that the information
will be shared by no one, including other members of the intelligence
committees. As a result, only a few members of Congress were aware of
the president’s surveillance program, and they were constrained from
discussing it more widely.”

How did the American people react upon learning in December 2005 of
this glaring infringement on their Constitutional rights. Most reacted
as they have been conditioned to act—out of the old fear-factor
shibboleth: “After 9/11/2001, everything changed.”

Yes, just as after 2/27/1933, the night of the burning of the German
Parliament (Reichstag) in Berlin, everything changed.

As a German attorney there at the time put it:

“What one can blame them [German politicians and populace] for, and
what shows their terrible collective weakness of character, is that
this settled the matter. With sheepish submissiveness the German people
accepted that, as a result of the fire, each one of them lost what
little personal freedom and dignity was guaranteed by the Constitution;
as though it followed as a necessary consequence. If the Communists
burned down the Reichstag, it was perfectly in order that the
government took ‘decisive measures.’” [Defying Hitler, A Memoir, by
Sebastian Haffner, p. 121]

And if the terrorists attacked on 9/11, it was perfectly in order that
the Bush administration took “decisive measures”—Patriot Act and
illegal measures. In reaction to the PR offensive to manipulate and
exploit the trauma we all felt from 9/11, far too many of our
politicians and fellow citizens exhibited sheepish submissiveness.

Pre-9/11 Spying

Now we learn that it is even worse. The eavesdropping abuses began as
soon as the Bush administration came into office — WELL BEFORE 9/11.

In recent days, thanks to an enterprising reporter for the Rocky
Mountain News, we learned that the president, vice president, and CIA
director—not to mention the credulous crowd around Nancy Pelosi—have
all been regurgitating a king-sized whopper aimed at providing
“justification” for the National Security Agency program.

The White House PR folks made this easy by retroactively applying a
clever label to the program: the “Terrorist Surveillance Program.”
Nothing to fear, folks, unless you’re telephoning or e-mailing Osama
bin-Laden.

Whopper? Well yes. It turns out that seven months before the threat of
terrorism got President George W. Bush's attention (despite the best
efforts of then-counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke to install it on
everyone’s screen-saver, so to speak), the administration instructed
NSA to suborn American telecommunications companies to spy illegally on
Americans.

The general counsel of Qwest Communications advised management that
what NSA was suggesting was illegal. And to his credit, the head of the
company at that time stuck to a firm “No,” unless some way were found
to perform legally what NSA wanted done.

Qwest’s rivals, though, took their cue from the White House, and
adopted a flexible attitude toward  the law—and got the business. They
are now being sued. Lawsuit filings claim that, seven months before
9/11, AT&T “began development of a center for monitoring long-distance
calls and Internet transmissions and other digital information for the
exclusive use of the NSA.”

Adding insult to injury, draft legislation now being pushed by the
White House would hold AT&T and other collaborators harmless for
playing fast and loose with our right to privacy in order to enhance
their bottom line.

For its principled but, in government eyes, recalcitrant attitude,
Qwest indicates that it lost out on lucrative government contracts.

Yes, BEFORE 9/11.

These illegal operations were enabled by Michael Hayden, then head of
NSA and now head of CIA. Despite this history, Hayden has been out
front “justifying” the illegal eavesdropping by citing what happened on
9/11.

Did he know the warrantless domestic spying was illegal? That one is a
no-brainer. While at NSA, Hayden emphasized what was known as NSA’s
First Commandment: “Thou Shalt Not Eavesdrop on Americans.”

When an unauthorized disclosure revealed the program to the press in
late 2005, Hayden agreed to play point man with smoke and mirrors to
conceal the full story. Small wonder that the White House later deemed
him the perfect man to head the CIA.

Martinet

In testimony at his CIA confirmation hearings in May 2006, Hayden said
that in the wake of 9/11 he “could not not do” what the president
dubbed the “Terrorist Surveillance Program.”

A whiff of conscience showed through his nomination hearing, though,
when he flubbed the answer to a soft-pitch from administration
loyalist, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri:

“Did you believe that your primary responsibility as director of NSA
was to execute a program that your NSA lawyers, the Justice Department
lawyers, and White House officials all told you was legal and that you
were ordered to carry it out by the president of the United States?”

Instead of the simple “Yes” that was in the script, Hayden paused and
spoke rather poignantly—and revealingly: “I had to make this personal
decision in early October 2001, and it was a personal decision...I
could not not do this.”

Why should it be such an enormous personal decision whether or not to
obey a White House order? No one asked Hayden, but it requires no
particular acuity to figure it out.

This is a military officer who, like the rest of us, had sworn to
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; a military man well aware one must never obey an
unlawful order.

President Bush assured us on Jan. 23, 2006, “I had all kinds of lawyers
review the process.” Seems so. The same ones who were at the same time
devising ways to “legalize” torture and indefinite detention without
due process.

No American, save perhaps Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, who was present at
the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (and who has
said the eavesdropping program is illegal), knew FISA better than
Hayden.

Nonetheless, Hayden conceded that he did not even require a written
legal opinion to satisfy himself that the surveillance program, to be
implemented without warrant and without adequate consultation in
Congress, could pass the smell test.

Small wonder that one of Hayden’s predecessors as NSA director, upon
learning what Hayden had agreed to do, said angrily, “He ought to be
court-martialed.”

And who was the NSA general counsel at the time? It appears to have
been one Robert L. Deitz, who is now a “trusted aide” to CIA Director
Hayden. Deitz has just been launched on an investigation of the CIA
Inspector General, who apparently made the mistake of being too honest
in investigating abuses like torture. Remarkable. [NYT, Oct. 11, 2007]

Where Was Congress?

What was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing all this time?

When the illegal eavesdropping was exposed, many asked why the
administration did not simply go to Congress to secure changes in the
already flexible FISA law, if such were needed. In an unguarded moment
at a press conference on Dec. 19, 2005, Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales let slip that the administration did take soundings in
Congress:

"This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has authorized
this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with Congress in the
past - certain members of Congress - as to whether or not FISA could be
amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we
were advised that that would be difficult, if not impossible."

Were you one of those with whom Gonzales had discussions, Nancy?

Either way you were woefully derelict in your duty. Either they told
you or they didn’t. Either way you come off as no leader.

Time to fish or cut bait. Assuming the Bush regime did not inform you
regarding eavesdropping on Americans before 9/11, do not any longer
cover up for the White House. Rather, these crimes demand impeachment.

If they did keep you fully informed and, out of obeisance to the
executive branch you acquiesced and said nothing, you should lay down
your duties as House leader, examine your conscience, and consider
resigning.


[Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the
ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. He was an Army
infantry/intelligence officer from 1962-64, and then a CIA analyst for
27 years. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity (VIPS).]