Hoekstra’s Threat
/32 Comments/in emptywheel /by emptywheelI had a feeling there was something more–a lot more–to the Lichtblau-Shane story reporting a surveillance program that Peter Hoekstra hadn’t been briefed on. Only I wasn’t sharp enough to do what texas dem did–look for the letter referenced in the article. Thanks to texas dem, we can see clearly that Hoekstra’s complaints about undisclosed surveillance programs are nothing more than a threat leveled in response to the Administration’s departure from previous efforts to gut the intelligence agencies.
The letter is a primarily a complaint about the nomination of General Hayden to be head of the CIA and–more important still–Hayden’s determination to name Steven Kappes as Deputy Director of the CIA. Hoekstra describes Hayden’s commitment to Kappes as a fundamental departure from previous collaboration between the White House and the House.
Regrettably, the appointment of Mr. Kappes sends a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over. I am concerned that the strong objections – not just about this personal selection – are being dismissed completely, perhaps sending us back to the past, less cooperative relationship, at a time when so much more needs to be done. Individuals both within and outside the Administration have let me and others know of their strong opposition to the choice for Deputy Director. Yet, in my conversation with General Hayden it is clear that the decision on Mr. Kappes is final. Collaboration is what got us successful intelligence reform. Why would we want to eschew such a relationship and process that proved so successful? [my emphasis]
Note the reference to "individuals both within and outside of the Administration." Did Dick or Rummy put Hoekstra up to this complaint?
Hoekstra's Threat
/in emptywheel /by emptywheelI had a feeling there was something more–a lot more–to the Lichtblau-Shane story reporting a surveillance program that Peter Hoekstra hadn’t been briefed on. Only I wasn’t sharp enough to do what texas dem did–look for the letter referenced in the article. Thanks to texas dem, we can see clearly that Hoekstra’s complaints about undisclosed surveillance programs are nothing more than a threat leveled in response to the Administration’s departure from previous efforts to gut the intelligence agencies.
The letter is a primarily a complaint about the nomination of General Hayden to be head of the CIA and–more important still–Hayden’s determination to name Steven Kappes as Deputy Director of the CIA. Hoekstra describes Hayden’s commitment to Kappes as a fundamental departure from previous collaboration between the White House and the House.
Regrettably, the appointment of Mr. Kappes sends a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over. I am concerned that the strong objections – not just about this personal selection – are being dismissed completely, perhaps sending us back to the past, less cooperative relationship, at a time when so much more needs to be done. Individuals both within and outside the Administration have let me and others know of their strong opposition to the choice for Deputy Director. Yet, in my conversation with General Hayden it is clear that the decision on Mr. Kappes is final. Collaboration is what got us successful intelligence reform. Why would we want to eschew such a relationship and process that proved so successful? [my emphasis]
Note the reference to "individuals both within and outside of the Administration." Did Dick or Rummy put Hoekstra up to this complaint?
Telecommunications Timewarp
/in emptywheel /by emptywheelWhen I beat up on Jason Leopold for some confusion in an article on domestic spying, I keyed on one detail. He was claiming Bush set up the program Risen and Lichtblau had revealed before 9/11.
Still, one thing that appears to be indisputable is that the NSAsurveillance began well before 9/11 and months before President Bushclaims Congress gave him the power to use military force againstterrorist threats, which Bush says is why he believed he had the legalright to bypass the judicial process.
But he based that claim on two things. (He also quoted former NSA encryption specialists who appeared to be referring to a different kind of surveillance.) A Slate article that quoted telecom executives saying the NSA started collecting call data before 9/11.
A former telecom executive told us that efforts to obtain calldetails go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and thepresident’s now celebrated secret executive order.
And a Transitions 2001 document, dated December 2000, saying that NSA had to "live on the network."
The volumes and routing of data make finding and processing nuggets of intelligence information more difficult. To perform both its offensive and defensive missions, NSA must "live on the network."
I was particularly confused how a December 2000 document–from before Bush was President was evidence that Bush ordered domestic surveillance before 9/11.
I raise these details because I had a bit of deja vu when reading the Bloomberg article reporting a plaintiff’s lawyer stating:
"The Bush Administration asserted this became necessaryafter 9/11," plaintiff’s lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephoneinterview. "This undermines that assertion."