No access means no investigation

The [tag]Justice Department[/tag]’s ethics office had launched a probe of the department’s lawyers who approved the president’s [tag]warrantless[/tag]-[tag]search[/tag] program. Yesterday, the investigation ended – because the NSA wouldn’t give Justice clearance.

The head of the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, H. Marshall Jarrett, wrote in the letter to Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, that “we have been unable to make meaningful progress in our investigation because O.P.R. has been denied security clearances for access to information about the N.S.A. program.”

Mr. Jarrett said his office had requested clearances since January, when it began an investigation, and was told on Tuesday that they had been denied. “Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have [tag]closed[/tag] our [tag]investigation[/tag],” the letter said.

Mr. Hinchey said the denial of clearances was “hard to believe” and compounded what he called a violation of the law by the program itself, which eavesdrops without court warrants on people in the United States suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.

Hard to believe, indeed. As Mark Kleiman explained, the DoJ officials involved in the investigation have all been subject to rigorous background checks, and even if specific individuals at the agency were deemed security risks, the NSA could exclude them instead of the entire Department of Justice.

Since the program in question was an NSA program, presumably the decision on access would have been made within the NSA. So in effect the NSA has decided that the public interest would not be served by having the means by which its program was approved reviewed by an independent set of investigators.

Now couple that with Bobby Ray Inman’s flat declaration that the warrantless-wiretapping program “was not authorized” by law, and what you have isn’t a security decision: it’s a coverup.

I’m looking forward to Michael Hayden’s confirmation hearings; how about you?

It’s amazing that no investigators could be found that would qualify for the same level security clearance as Karl Rove.

  • Don’t attempt to approach this issue as a question of legality or presidential power. Rather, work to make the following points.

    Hayden’s NSA had the intercepts of communications in Arabic which, if translated before 9/11, would have warned the Government of the pending attacks and enabled the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) to tighten security so as to prevent the attack. However, the NSA failed to translate these intercepts in a timely fashion, leading to the death of over 3000 Americans. In the wake of this clear failure, the NSA created the Domestic Surveillance Program, seemingly for no other reason than to cover their collective backside after their previous failure.

    General Hayden has made the claim that if the Domestic Surveillance Program had been in place before 9/11, they might have the intelligence to stop the attacks. Question him thus, have the program methods been applied to the intercepts made before 9/11? What tips would the program have created? How quickly would those tips be provided to the FBI to follow up on? How long is the FBI taking to follow up on the tips provided by the NSA the Domestic Surveillance Program now? With these delays, would the tips actually stopped 9/11?

    And how would these tips have been any different than the memos written by FBI agents warning of terrorists training to fly airplanes which were ignored by the FBI command structure?

    Regarding the Domestic Surveillance Program itself, focus not on its legality under FISA (it’s not) or its constitutionality (it isn’t). Rather, focus on its effectiveness. The program produces thousands of tips a year. These are given to the FBI to pursue further. From published reports, it appears that two or three of these tips have produced real leads, all of which the FBI claims to have in process from other investigative methods. General Hayden claims that the program helped capture a terrorist thinking about cutting down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch. Apparently, even the terrorist figured out it would be stupid to try cut down a bridge being patrolled by National Guard and NYPD because he dropped the plot. Based on these published numbers, the success rate of the program is less than one percent. I think the Congress should contact the FBI and ask them to report not only on the success rate but the man-hours spent on the Domestic Surveillance Program tips.

    With the success rate established at less than one percent, you can approach the question of constitutionality. With such a high failure rate, over 99%, no program of searches can be considered reasonable. If not reasonable, it can not be brought before the FISA court to obtain a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Since the act covers all surveillance of foreign to domestic communications, the Domestic Surveillance Program is not legal. Because it is conducted without a warrant the Domestic Surveillance Program is not constitutional. Since the fourth amendment was written and adopted after Article II specifically because the various states did not want to have an unconstrained executive conducting warrantless unreasonable searches during war time (as they had just gone through during the war against George III) then the powers of the President does not override the requirement to obtain a warrant to conduct a surveillance.

    The Domestic Surveillance Program is like a Patriot anti-missile battery. It doesn’t shoot anything down most of the time, but at least it gives the recipients of Scud missile attacks the feeling that they are going SOMETHING about the incoming fire.

  • I predict Hayden’s nomination will be withdrawn within the week. It seems obvious today’s leak of the NSA phone record database was done to shoot down Hayden. God, what infighting must be going on in our intel community.

  • Clarification: Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, former NSA director under President Jimmy Carter

  • When’s the next congressional recess and would Goss be willing to stay that long? A recess appointment would get them past this year’s elections at least.

  • So if I follow the logic…gee, we aren’t doing anything illegal even though we aren’t using the FISA system…and we are talking to “some” members of congress…but they can’t tell you anything because the information is totally classified….and gee, we are ok with some investigative oversight…but unfortunately we can’t grant security clearance to the investigators.

    Gee…it looks to me like we have a dictator in charge. He breaks the rules, he rewrites the rules, he changes the rules, and he answers to no one.

    I only hope we can export our “democracy” to Iraq and the rest of the opressed world so they can have the same rights that we do.

    more observations here:

    http://www.thoughttheater.com

  • Herewith a self-serving announcement. Over at That’s Another Fine Mess -http://www.thatsanotherfinemess.com – I have posted some information about what this “terrorist surveillance program” is REALLY doing, which is tracing ALL DOMESTIC communications except those on Qwest, the one telcom that has decided not to cooperate with this program.

    You, too, may want to put a sign on your telephone similar to what mine had for five years 36 years ago: “Don’t say anything on this phone you wouldn’t say to the FBI.”

    Excellent post, Lance – you really laid it out great.

  • So, the Dept of Justice cannot exert it’s judicial authority because the NSA is the higher authority? I could swear I went to bed in America but somehow woke up in the former East Germany.

  • When’s the next congressional recess and would Goss be willing to stay that long? A recess appointment would get them past this year’s elections at least.

    Goss has already packed his bags and hit the door. He “resigned” immediately.

    I think you’re right though. Hayden will be the Director of the CIA. I have little hope the Senate will raise enough of a fuss to derail the appointment. I’d be surprised if he was even placed under oath. Even if on some odd chance he doesn’t get out of committee, Bush will install him through a recess appointment. He’ll assume control of the agency in July or August, right before the mid-term elections.

  • Hmmmmph. Anyone who wants to claim that the usual Hitler/Stalin analogies don’t work with BushCo. is correct. -At least Hitler and Stalin didn’t claim to be running Democracies.

  • “At least Hitler and Stalin didn’t claim to be running Democracies.” – Caster Troy

    The Weimer Republic was a democracy until Hitler’s second or third election.

    “Excellent post, Lance – you really laid it out great.” – Tom Cleaver

    Thank you kindly. That’s what I sent out to a couple of the Dem Senators on the Select Committee on Intelligence. Hopefully, they will actually read it.

  • Of course they know that the DOJ is actually capable of launching an investigation and following through as Skooter Libby will agree. It must be a difficult time for lawbreakers who believed they were invulnerable to prosecution if they were loyal republicans. Anyone working in law enforcement or anyone who is a student of History will tell you that the truth has a funny way of comming out. Warantless spying is against the law no matter how many Bush drones say it isn’t. I doubt that this story is over.

  • We need to stop using phrases like “I can’t believe”.

    It allows us some kind of frustration that vents the anger. Instead I would say something like, “here’s what the #$%’s did today…”

    They are doing it. It is us.

  • Comments are closed.