Spying on Your Friends and Enemies

Laura’s right. Jeff Stein’s article detailing the several ways in which Senator Richard Shelby spied on Anthony Lake and similar activities raises all sorts of questions.

Tenet also wrote that, “National Security Agency officials told usthat Shelby staffers had been asking whether there was derogatoryinformation in their communications intercepts on Lake.”

But the NSA refused Shelby’s entreaties, two sources said, and there was no derogatory information in the FBI’s files.

Shelbyalso demanded, and got, the FBI’s raw files on Lake. The senator didnot respond to three days of requests last week for comment.

Laura reminds us that Shelby was the guy who leaked NSA intercepts from Al Qaeda to Fox News. But this story raises several other questions about the extent of this practice.

  1. Two sources say the NSA refused to give Shelby what he wanted. But we know that the NSA did give John Bolton what he wanted. Who is getting info like this from NSA? High ranking executive branch officials? Congressmen? Who else?
  2. Stein describes the nastiness of the Gosslings, going back to the 1990s. That reminds me of Pete Hoekstra’s threat (from July of last year) purportedly directed at the Administration. That threat seemed to be an attempt to prevent the Read more
Share this entry

The Legislative Branch Shows Signs of Life

When I was at the Duke conference last week, I premised a question to ACLU’s Legal Director that ACLU was having more success in the courts than in Congress of late. He responded by joking about my faint praise. Perhaps I reverse jinxed him. Because we’re beginning to make some progress in Congress.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, postponed apress conference announcing new reforms of the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Act after progressive lawmakers banded together and saidthey would fight any legislation that did not include a set of eightprinciples on wiretapping that preserve the "rule of law."

"What’s most significant is that the Progressive Caucus cametogether and said to the leadership that all 72 of us require thatthese provisions be included," said Caroline Fredercikson, LegislativeDirector for the American Civil Liberties Union. "This changes thedynamic significantly."

Meanwhile, back in the Executive Branch, we are making no progress, as you’d expect.

The head of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission declined toinvestigate reports that phone companies turned over customer recordsto the National Security Agency, citing national security concerns,according to documents released on Friday.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin turned down a congressional request for aninvestigation as a top intelligence official concluded it would "posean unnecessary risk Read more

Share this entry

Cathie Martin’s Working Media on One Side

And her FCC Chair hubby, Kevin Martin, is working media on the other side. The LAT reports (h/t Sirota) that the FCC is leaking information on key votes to big stakeholders. Since there’s a restriction on lobbying in the week before a vote, this has the effect of making it impossible for those representing citizens to lobby in a timely fashion.

People are allowed to submit comments and meet with FCC commissionersand staff until one week before a public meeting. The FCC circulatesdrafts of its proposed rulings and decisions among its staff so theyknow what items are scheduled to be voted on. But the information isconfidential, and FCC rules prohibit anyone from releasing it withoutthe chairman’s authorization.

"FCC officials told us that, for stakeholders to successfully maketheir case before FCC, ‘timing is everything,’ " the report said."Specifically, if a stakeholder knows that a proposed rule has beenscheduled for a vote and may be voted on in three weeks, thatstakeholder can schedule a meeting with FCC officials before the ruleis voted on."

Those who don’t know about an upcoming vote until the agenda isannounced are frozen out of lobbying by the one-week prohibition, theGAO said.

"FCC staff who disclose nonpublic information about when an issue Read more

Share this entry

Oh, THAT’S Who We Get to Kick Around

Larry Craig, that’s who.

Shortly after a state judge denied his request to withdraw the Augustplea admitting to disorderly conduct, Mr. Craig said he had reversedhis previously announced decision to leave the Senate if he could notget the plea thrown out and would instead serve out his third term,which expires at the end of 2008. He said he would not run for a fourth.

Last we heard, Mark Geragos had withdrawn his Congressional subpoenas so he could try again.

A lawyer for a defense contractor accused of bribing former U.S.Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham on Tuesday withdrew subpoenas of a dozenHouse members after a federal judge indicated he was prepared to quashthem.

U.S. District Judge Larry Burns said he mightconsider enforcing the subpoenas if attorneys for Brent Wilkes coulddemonstrate the lawmakers had specific information related to thecharges and their testimony would be critical to Wilkes’ defense.

Wilkes’attorney, Mark Geragos, dropped his request but told reporters laterthat he planned to file new subpoenas against former House Speaker U.S.Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and four California Republicans.

[snip]

He is also considering subpoenas against up to 15 other House membersand four senators: Larry Craig, R-Idaho; Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii; CarlLevin, D-Mich., and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

So perhaps Craig is sticking around to make Read more

Share this entry

Waterboarding Is Fair Game

I’m pooped so will have to return to this article. It explains how, after DOJ under Jack Goldsmith threw out John Yoo’s torture policies, Steven Bradbury came in and replaced them with still worse opinions.

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” ina legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared tohave abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authorityto order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’sarrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Departmentissued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very differentdocument, according to officials briefed on it, an expansiveendorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time providedexplicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination ofpainful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping,simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey,the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruisingclashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as theopinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues atthe department that they would all be “ashamed” when the worldeventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress Read more

Share this entry

Who Do We Have to Kick Around Anymore?

We already lost Abu Gonzales, Karl Rove, Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, Brad Schlozman, and Michael Elston. And now we’re losing Pete Domenici.

Veteran Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is expected to announce tomorrowthat he will retire from the Senate in 2008, according to severalinformed sources, a decision that further complicates an alreadydifficult playing field for Republicans next November.

Domenicihas struggled with health problems over the last several years and hasbeen dogged by questions about the role he may have played in thefiring of U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque. As a result,he had been long been rumored as a potential retirement. Domenici’sSenate office did not return a call this afternoon, but sources closeto the senator say he will fly home to New Mexico tomorrow to make theannouncement that he is retiring.

[snip]

The Senate ethics committee is investigating Domenci for a phonecall he placed to then-federal prosecutor Iglesias last October in apossible attempt to pressure him to indict New Mexico Democrats in acorruption probe just before the November election. Shortly afterIglesias said he rebuffed Domenici, his name appeared on a list of U.S.attorneys to be fired that was compiled by top Justice Departmentaides. Iglesias was dismissed Dec. 7.

Republican insiders insist that Domenici’s decision Read more

Share this entry

About Those Emails? The Contractor Did It

I guess if you make sure your contractors can’t reveal what they’ve done in your name, it becomes harder for others to discover what it is that you, personally, have done. But not impossible. The IT companies for the White House are denying that their the company that missed 5 million missing emails in their daily audits.

When Congress asked about 5 million executive branch e-mails that wentmissing, a White House lawyer pointed the finger at an outside ITcontractor.

The only problem? No such IT contractor exists, according tosources close to the investigation of a possible violation of theFederal Records and Presidential Records acts.

[snip]

Contrary to Roberts’ statement to the Oversight Committee, severalsources, including an IT company currently doing contractual work forthe Executive Office of the President, have told ChannelWeb that nooutside company had a managed services contract to audit the Executive Office of the President’s e-mail archiving system daily during the period when the e-mails went missing.

"There are many contractors working for the [Information Assurance]Directorate and no single one provided audit and archive functions,"said a spokesperson for Unisys, an IT security and hardware firm whichhas provided the Executive Office of the President "with a variety ofIT services that support the Office of Administration."

"We don’t believe that Unisys is the Information AssuranceDirectorate contractor to which Deputy Attorney General Keith Robertsreferred when he briefed Rep. Waxman’s committee in May," said LisaMeyer, director of public relations for the Blue Bell, Penn.-basedcompany.

For the record, we might want to distrust Unisys on this point. After all, they’re the company supposedly in charge of monitoring Homeland Security’s computer system. And they seemed to have missed basic things–like installing security devices on Homeland Security’s networks.

Share this entry

A Game of Telephone

So AT&T says they’ll cut off your broadband if you say anything mean about them. But they say they don’t really mean that.

However, an AT&T spokesperson tells Ars Technica that thecompany has no interest in engaging in censorship but stopped short ofsaying that AT&T could not in fact exercise its ability to do so.

"AT&T respects its subscribers’ rights to voice their opinions andconcerns over any matter they wish.  However, we retain the right todisassociate ourselves from web sites and messages explicitlyadvocating violence, or any message that poses a threat to children(e.g. child pornography or exploitation)," the spokesperson told ArsTechnica. "We do not terminate customer service solely because acustomer speaks negatively about AT&T."

Note the tense of the verb. "Do not," not "Will not."

Meanwhile, my guy Dingell is getting impatient with waiting for lawsuits to reveal what the telecoms gave to the government on us.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the telecom industry, yesterday sent letters to three major carriers, AT&T, Qwest and Verizon, posing questions aimed at understanding what consumer information is being shared with the government.

"Congress has a duty to inquire about whether [the governmentsurveillance program] violates the Constitution, as well as consumerprotection and Read more

Share this entry

One Small Victory for Oversight

One lingering suspicion that they’re just moving this off the books:

After several requests from the Homeland Security Committee callingfor a moratorium on the controversial use of spy satellite imagery fordomestic purposes, the Department has heeded the call and delayed itsplanned October 1st launch of its new National Applications Office(NAO). The Department has cited the need to address unanswered privacyand civil liberties questions from Congress – as addressed in theCommittee’s September 6th hearing on the matter and also in lettersfrom August 22nd and September 6th from Committee Members.

Rep.Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Chairman of the Committee on HomelandSecurity, released the following statement regarding the decision:

“Whilewe are pleased by the Department’s decision to go back to the drawingboard and get it right, we are troubled by its silence on the secondpart of our request: that Congress also be provided ‘a full opportunityto review the NAO’s written legal framework, offer comments, and helpshape appropriate procedures and protocols.’

Even putting aside my suspicion this is just another head fake to move surveillance beyond the grasp of Congress, Thompson’s point remains. The Administration thus far refuses to allow Congress some input into what appropriate use of satellite surveillance of civilians would be.

Well, at least Read more

Share this entry

Has Dick Cheney Outlasted Bill Leonard?

Bill Leonard is resigning at the end of the year.

It is with deeply mixed emotions that I inform you I have decided to leave government service at the end of the calendar year.

[snip]

I will miss all the great public servants at the National Archives as I move on to the next phase of my professional life. Nonetheless, I look forward to new opportunities to serve this great nation and the American people.

Leonard, of course, is the guy who took on Dick Cheney’s creative theories about classification and declassification. As Secrecy News notes,

In pursuit of that integrity earlier this year, Mr. Leonard famously challenged the Office of the Vice President, which decided in 2003 that it would no longer submit to longstanding classification oversight procedures.

After the Federation of American Scientists filed a formal complaintconcerning the OVP’s non-compliance, Mr. Leonard urged Cheney aideDavid Addington to reconsider its position. When Addington ignored therequest, Mr. Leonard exercised his authority to raise the issue withthe Attorney General, who is obliged by the executive order onclassification to render an interpretation of the order’s requirements.

Althoughno response from the Attorney General was forthcoming, the episodeturned the Vice President and his unchecked secrecy into an object ofpublic ridicule. Read more

Share this entry