Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Still Time! | Main | They're Not Going To Stop »

December 22, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d8345bfb2e69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Be Careful What You Wish For:

» Only A Fool Would Talk Impeachment from Decision '08
for the NSA affair after this blistering defense of the legality of the Presidents action by the Justice Department. Ill save my critics some time: the point is not whether you believe Justices justification, or whether th... [Read More]

» New Day, The Left Is Still Insane from The Strata-Sphere
Updates at the end There are so many examples of the lefts self destruction on the NSA monitoring of Al Qaeda and Terrorist contacts in the US it simply boggles the mind so many people could have been swept up in the madness. Not most people ... [Read More]

» You We Didn't Vote For! / Open Trackback post from The Real Ugly American
I have to say as a non beltway insider. Pardons just come off as slimey to me as I think they do to most of the electorate. I think Michael Ledeen's sugestion is far easier to digest and actually would accomplish more than political victory. It might j... [Read More]

Comments

r flanagan

Good for you.

boris

I question the timing.

J. Rockheadfella

Plus Fineman makes it sound like the following is a weak basis for supporting the President's decision:

"He and Cheney will argue his inherent powers and will cite Supreme Court cases and the resolution that authorized him to make war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda."

Huh? Looks pretty solid to me.

H8NYT

I read *almost* all of the entire brief, but it got a bit repetitive. I agree with the surveillance.

This isn't ordinary pickin' through the trash surveillance. We know the cell phone numbers they are calling, and we are also listening. How do we know the cell phone numbers? We capture their computers and cell phones. Many key AQ figures have been aprehended. They all had tons of info on them.

If you caught Zawahaha (#2 AQ), don't you want to know who's in his cell phone? Don't you want to listen? Duh.

As for the double-standard, I agree it's Libby's get out of jail free card.

I would like to see the NY Times fall for this one though.

Seven Machos

1. Doesn't Howard Fineman write for Newsweek? Isn't that the same publication that said recently that Bush is in a bubble? Yet it is the left talking of impeachment (by a Republican Congress) over spying on terrorists. Who is in a bubble? More like Kaus's Left-Liberal Cocoon striking again.

2. I remember one of the trial balloons of the moonbat left was something like "Clinton told Bush about Osama." Hence, the argument went, Bush should have stopped the September 11 hijackers. HOW? Apparently, not by monitoring their communications.

3. How many times will the Democrats in the media try to throw Bush into the national security briar patch?

4. When will some intelligent Democrat run as the anti-Dean for 2008, saying: The war is (was) great; the war on terrorism is great and if anything we should be more aggressive but now let's talk about education and jobs." Hillary? Do you read this blog?

Rick Ballard

In an imaginary world where Democtrat politicians actually had spines, one of them could profer a bill rescinding AUMF as being unneccesary. I doubt that the Republicans would block such a bill they would be unwise to even limit debate. The Democrats should be given every opportunity to actually vote their conscience - as if they actually had one.

Pending profer of a bill of rescission I would hope that the Democrats would fully support a DoJ criminal investigation of this breach of national security and would call for the imposition of maximum penalties for anyone found guilty.

Of course, no such thing will occur. The Dems really need to try and understand that the move that comes after pulling the pin and popping the handle on a grenade is to actually throw it. Hanging on to it just doesn't provide very satisfactory results. As we will see shortly.

BlaBlaBla

That document does contain some very strong language:

As an initial matter, I emphasize a few points. The President stated that these activities are "crucial to our national security." The President further explained that "the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country." These critical national security activities remain classified. All United States laws and policies governing the protection
and nondisclosure of national security information. including the information relating to the activities described by the President, remain in full force and effect. The unauthorized disclosure
of classified infomiation violates federal criminal law. The Government may provide further classified briefings to the Congress on these activities in an appropriate manner. Any such briefings will be conducted in a manner that will not endanger national security. Under Article 11 of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution
gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty.

The moonbats have overplayed their hand, will the spineless in the Senate take advantage?

SteveMG

will argue his inherent powers and will cite Supreme Court cases and the resolution that authorized him to make war

Okay, here's the list.

1. Executive Branch = Inherent powers -> good to go
2. Legislative Branch = AUMF -> good to go
3. Judicial Branch = Prior SCOTUS rulings -> good to go
4. Fourth Branch = Are you kidding? -> never got off the ground

Gonna' be dicey as to whether the White House can win this.

SMG

Lew Clark

I've gotten my hopes up too many times just to have them dashed. But maybe, just maybe, this time they will investigate and prosecute obvious criminal disclosure of classified information. Maybe there will be some real traitors frog-marched away. But, I won't hold my breath.

Dwilkers

That may be the dumbest column Fineman ever wrote.

Or the dumbest one of his that I've read anyway.

boris

Think poker ... bluffing or kill hand ???

Their butts are already in the pot ... fold and lose or call and get hammered. They stayed in the hand too long and W knows it.

boris

Throwing Libby in the kitty almost looks like bait now.

r flanagan

Whatever.

With respect to the specific ? of dealing with the leakers and/or The Times......

1. The leakers must be removed one way or another for the sake of an orderly administration.Don't grasp TM's point about immunity for leaking but I don't care provided they go.

2. Perjury should always be punished irrespective of the underlying crime
tho the punishment inter alia should reflect
the seriousness of the underlying crime: Clinton(3 months in jail ,from a trial after he completed his term ? Impeachment is dumb),Libby ,these officials if they should perjure themselves.

3. The Times should be left alone for the reasons TM cites.

boris

Seriously doubt W's playing for convictions or jail time. The chips in this round are power markers, seats in congress, and MSM attitudes. It should have dawned on the other side that predictability is a bad trait in this game but they literally [literally] could not help themselves.

BlaBlaBla

"As to Fineman's talk of impeachment - the first polls on this will send the Dem leadership scuttling back to wherever they were hiding for the first three years of this program."

TM: Are you referring to a specific poll or just speculating?

TM

Don't grasp TM's point about immunity for leaking

Well, the idea is that it speeds the process considerably.

Are you referring to a specific poll or just speculating?

I am guessing about polls. But I believe!

kim

Of course you're right. The Democrats are defending your right to talk to terrorists unmolested. That'll get 'em a lot of votes.
=======================================

BlaBlaBla

"I am guessing about polls. But I believe!"

Like other polls, I am sure this one will depend heavily on how the question is asked. The "domestic spying" nonsense has made its way into the public discourse a la the MSM.

Is it just me, or do the democrats derive all of their policy positions from MSM stories/fabrications? Are we the point where we only have two major political parties -the republicans and the media? The democrats are completely irrelavant in the equation. Poor Scoop Jackson, he must be rolling in his grave.

r flanagan

Fine. Also keeps down the cost.

topsecretk9

Rick
The Dems really need to try and understand that the move that comes after pulling the pin and popping the handle on a grenade is to actually throw it.

Giggle.

Well I suppose TM is right except for this leak effects everyone not just the energy analysts'

I mean, there is an a point when the leaks have to stop...leaks that harm us...SO if this one doesn't cause a heart-attack, then I guess by caveat the leaks will continue...but they need to stop

topsecretk9

Like other polls, I am sure this one will depend heavily on how the question is asked. The "domestic spying" nonsense has made its way into the public discourse a la the MSM

Only my hunch...but I don't the MSM can make a dent in the publics perception on this one...listening in on domestic AQ no matter if the connection is 12 degrees will be cool with most.

kim

There is little like the arrogance of power derived from inherited wealth.
==============================================

topsecretk9

which is to say ...Plame leak vs.this leak (and black sites, planes, rendition) is comparing apples to oranges...or an ant to a dinosaur.

topsecretk9

Another me hunch

I think an investigation is a forgone conclusion.

Mostly because this time Bush is pissed at Rokefellar, and my guess is Rock was given more than enough info and deference AND his lame (BAD handwriting!) letter has turned out to be an embarrassment and really an admission he was the leaker.

HOW WOULD THE TIMES KNOW HE WAS UP SET IF HE COULDN'T TALK TO ANYONE ABOUT IT---DUH

Anyhoo, I think Rock is wishing he could put this genie back in.

clarice

Rick, you always make me laugh!
TM, I think Ledeen's suggestion is a good one, provided it applies to Congress as well..and they can be stripped of their security clearances,

I really do think it's time to put the squeeze on the Dem party leaders to insist that all members and their staffs sign waivers of confidentiality--and if they fail to, they lose their committee positions.

Let's see---- a poker game between Bush and Rockefeller--a guy so stupid he says he told no one and then appears in the NYT as an obvious source. I know who I'm betting on,,

Jeff

Hopefully the Democrats will remember how popular Clinton was through the impeachment process -- not with most in the MSM, of course, but with the country. It's not definitive, but it might give them pause if they see what I suspect they would on the impeachment poll, with positives in the forties or so.

clarice - Your pal Chalabi appears not to have done dreadfully in the election the other day. He also appears to be claiming fraud. Do you buy that?

clarice

He's not my "pal" though I do admire him. I'm hearing there was lots of fraud but I have no independent knowledge of it. Let's see how he wends up after all the dust settles. He's a genius and a master negotiator.

topsecretk9

I see Jeff is being as anti neo-con as can be expected. charming.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

I am driving across the country and today on talk radio, speculation was made that the leaker(s) were none other than Rockefeller or that judge who just bailed out. The source for the speculation was a sentence in the original Times article that quoted these two regarding the story, implying that they knew about this secret and were talking about it to the Times before the article was published else how else could they be commenting. I don't have the original article, so I can't give you a cite for the sentence, but it was read and it sure does make one wonder.

As a disclaimer, I threw out my back and driving is hard, but by the time I'm in the motel at night, I'm suffering, so I'm passing this on to you even though I wanted to cover it on my own blog. The show was Limbaugh's and when a caller agreed with his speculation, he did a bit of a back pedal, which kind of surprised me.

topsecretk9

wink wink

clarice

A.J. Strata (Strata-Sphere blog)offered that hypothesis yesterday and I think there may be something to it. The claim re Rockefeller is strongest.

topsecretk9

umm...am I the only one interested in the Schadenfreude in Rockefellers' lame letter.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

I sucked it up and went and found the part read on the air:

"Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. "

Squiggler

clarice

TS--What's he saying? I'm going to let the President carry the burden but reserve the right to bitch about it..?

Pal2Pal (Sara)

Clarice: I would tend to agree on Rockefeller until I heard about the resignation of the judge. Now I'm not so sure. What is it they say about "consciousness of guilt" and all that?

Squiggler

topsecretk9

Oh thank you Clarice...that part I didn't dare touch...I had to read, re-read, re-read again and then just glaze.

pretty much sums it up...---I hope the DEMs don't dare try impeach because, if clintons polls tell them anything, it will be suicide????

Is that the point?

Syl

Well, I think we should go back to what we've learned in the Plame case.

People look for official confirmation. It's not just the First Leak! that counts. It's also the Second Leak!

So anybody (the judge and Rockefeller) who had official knowledge of the program) acknowledging its existence to somebody who doesn't have the right to know it (NYT) is as guilty as the first leaker.

anonymous

The 'secret court' was in the news the day it started, again.

I'd do some research before thinking its another Plame conspiracy.

You leak for the NYT?

Dwilkers

It appears to be correct that "a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters" is cited in the original article. Verrry interesting.

I am not aware of any other case where a leak like this might have come from a member of the judiciary. I think it may be unprecedented if that's what has happened.

That FISA court is so secret I'd bet 99.9999% of the people in this country don't even know it exists. It is taken so seriously by all involved that it is almost never talked about at all because no one that is or has been involved in it ever talks to the press.

It would be stunning if a sitting FISA judge were in any way involved in a leak like this.

ESC

The judge left because the Plame group is above prosecution at DOJ. They now report directly to the Director of CIA.

kim

Rockefeller's letter is political voodoo. What a schmuck!

I gotta pair of brand new shiny dimes.
You gotta telephone box.
================================================

specter

But in some ways you have to like the uproar the left is causing in all of this. I mean Rasmussen has been reporting Bush's numbers going up every day since his speech on Sunday evening. The more they complain, and the more the actual case law gets out, the more people are saying "WTF is with the NYT and the Demoncrats?"

kim

Be slightly more explicit, please, my esteemed ESC querier.
=================================================

noah

The only thing I like about NY are the Giants and they are in Jersey!!

maryrose

I believe the leaking must be exposed and security clearances revoked as well as committee assignments. These people are our elected leaders and need to start acting like it.
re; rflanagan and "perjury must be punished"
see Clinton's slap on the wrist and 5 yr. disbarrment

kim

There's everything to like about New York. It is the cultural center of the universe; its pretensions to political center are spinning out of control.
========================================

r flanagan

Maryrose I think Clinton's punishment was appropriate in 2001 since his impeachment was punishment enough. If instead his trial had been deferred until 2001 I think he should have got six months in Bedford , like Martha.

But that story has a long grey beard so
I'll spare you my rationale here or later.

Lew Clark

Rockefeller may not be the leak, but he has set himself up for a "lot of splainin to do" by his previous actions. The judge could have resigned because of being a leak but might have just resigned because he found out he wasn't being allowed to keep that president and his crowd in line.

And Kim, actually, Fort Worth is the cultural center of the universe. It's just up the road from Crawford, the political center of the universe. Come on down and I'll take you to the Kimball Art Museum, the Bass Music Hall, and finish off the evening, cat fishing on the Brazos River. Sumpin you just can't do in New York.

r flanagan

Maryrose I think Clinton's punishment was appropriate in 2001 since his impeachment was punishment enough. If instead his trial had been deferred until 2001 I think it should have been been 6 to 9 months in Bedford , like Martha.

But that story has a long grey beard so
I'll spare you my rationale here or later.

r flanagan

sorry for the double entry. I was just
trying to give Bill more time.

noah

I notice that the Left is laying low today...when Sunstein says its a 'kerfuffle' they know their goose is cooked.

cathyf

But, TM, your accusations of hypocrisy are unjust. The Democrats have a completely consistent position here: the vigor of prosecution of leakers should be inversely proportional to the actual harm to national security.

cathy :-)

Gary Maxwell

Holy crap!

Thanks for the direct link Specter. I had not seen Rasmussen yet. 50% is unbeleivable given that at the beginning of December every other post out of JayDee et all was how low Bush was in the polls.

Please please please Rep Lewis. Be very persuasive in your caucus. Bring that resolution to the floor of the House. And get all your progressive friends to sign onto it as cosponsors. Yo know you are right. John Kerry says you are right. So doers Ted Kennedy. Its so obvious. Go go go.

Hey JayDee/Katrina/Loblolly?Clash/Rose Mary /??? Are you seeing this? Its killing you I know it. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Bill Arnold

BlaBlaBla and others, here's an example of what the president said, not taken out of context:
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
Now, what exactly does this statement say?
What are clear links? Were journalists who once received a unsolicited phone call from someone who once received a phone call from someone who was in constant communication with AQ a target of this investigation? Are you sure? What about the opposition party operatives who that journalist talks with? What if he talked with the husband of an administration member (his wife suspects an affair)? [The intercepted hypothetical phone calls are internation for the purposes of this argument, though the traffic analysis to build the network diagram of communications could include domestic communications, if i understand the laws involved.]

Without judicial oversight, it's hard to say for sure... It's a matter of trust in the president. For some, trust in the president trumps paranoia, for those less trusting, paranoia rules.

TP

rflanagan. I'm not so sure it is a very good precedent to send ex-presidents to jail. It has that South America feel to it.

clarice

Redstate has an interesting comment--"Birth of a Known Fact"-- http://www.redstate.org/print/2005/12/23/04149/344

noah

Similar to their foreign policy...our propensity to use military force should be in inverse proportion to our national interest.

Cecil Turner

So, after all the drama of the Fitzgerald investigation, is it our official editorial position here at Just One Minute that turnabout is fair play?

I suspect this line of thinking is embedded into the national consciousness too deeply to challenge. However (not being one to pass up an opportunity to break a few lances on yon windmill), I'd like to register a formal exception.

There were two "leaks" in the Plame case, and only the first (Wilson's) had any appreciable effect on national security. Wilson gave a major (ongoing) propaganda victory to our enemies . . . outing his desk-jockey wife merely provided hours of fun and fitness for those of us fascinated with idle speculation and prone to jumping to conclusions. Viewing this as turnabout assumes opposite sides made the damaging leak in the two cases, and that's not on.

Further, my idle speculometer suggests the same culprits are the most likely suspects in the current foofraw. The pattern and scope of recent intelligence community leaks, all packaged for maximum political impact, suggest the VIPS crew is working overtime. I see no convincing evidence to suspect anyone else, and sincerely doubt someone like Rockefeller could pull it off without leaving telltale fingerprints [no offense, Senator]. This all appears to be of a piece, and the most likely explanation is disaffected spooks and former spooks running a classic Soviet-style dizinformatsia campaign [or maybe it's all just coincidence.

I want an investigation. And if it's conscience-driven leakers, fine, slap 'em on the wrist. But if it's a disgruntled cabal of Operations Directorate personnel leaking to support their political agenda, I'm all for grilling a few journos to get to the bottom of it. And then frying those responsible.

clarice

Cecil, do you think even the NYT would publich that Rockefeller and a judge who handles these matters were unahppy with the program solely on the word of VIPS whispers in their ears?

And don't forget Rockefeller is already under DoJ investigation for an earlier leak.

clarice

publiSh

specter

Not a problem Gary. I wonder why the MSM isn't running daily polls like they did when Bush's numbers were going down? Not really - I know why they aren't...But sooner or later one of them is going to run one and then all of a sudden the lefty pols are going to get religion! "You mean the public doesn't believe us? Why not?" Could it have something to do with trying to find one scandal after another for 5 years? Nawww....

noah

I don't understand how Rocky et al could be prosecuted in light of the speech and debate clause for the earlier leak.

Cecil Turner

Cecil, do you think even the NYT would publish that Rockefeller and a judge who handles these matters were unahppy with the program solely on the word of VIPS whispers in their ears?

No, I've no doubt Rockefeller was actually unhappy (and generally clueless), and the judge as well. But there's nothing secret about their reactions (especially not once the program was blown). And I doubt they were the initial leak, mostly because the Times folks appear to have been briefed by someone with a bit more of a clue than they had.

Gary Maxwell

If I dont get back here before then I want to wish our host and all of you posters, a very Merry Christmas. I hope the spirit of the season fills you with a joy and that Santa brings you more than you deserve!

noah

And all the same to you and yours Gary!

clarice

Ditto, Gary.

clarice

BTW A. J. Strata notes today that the FISA court was impeding saerches prior to 9/11 and Newsmax refers to a May 2002 Risen article in the NYT (they must have amnesia) which indicated Lambreth's anger at FBI's Resnick's errors (under Reno) in requests for warrants, played a significant role in the FBI's not seeking a warrant to search Moussaoui's computer. The article referred to is cached here:

topsecretk9

Clarice is scooping again, or is that selective news reporting!


GARY
You doll, I hope the spirit of the season fills you with a joy too! Cheers.

clarice

The cached article I cited is not the May 2002 piece..but rather a September 19, 2001 one Risen article but it, too, refers to the difficulty between Lambreth (FISA court) and Resnick FBI and how that affected the Moussaoui and other related AQ in the US searches.

(Now what ever happened to that May 2002 article?) Drat!!

topsecretk9

Cecil
mostly because the Times folks appear to have been briefed by someone with a bit more of a clue than they had.

I wonder what you really think of this briefing...hour by hour, the Times reporting appears to be nothing more than verbatim by the leakers and the initial report is looking embarrassing, no?

SteveMG

Clarice:
May 2002 Risen article in the NYT (they
must have amnesia)

That's a fascinating article from Risen detailing the conflict that Administrations (Clinton and Bush) were having with the FISA Court.

It reminds me of Madison's explanation that "jealousy" would be a critical component in the separation of powers and checks upon the branches. By that he meant that members of each branch would "jealously" guard the powers of that branch from encroachments by the others.

My guess is that this FISA Court was feeling their constitutional oats, so to speak, and were fighting back against some actions by the Clinton Administration to mitigate their powers as the terrorist threat was slowly emerging from the waters.

This is fine and dandy during times of peace. But the Bush Administration neither had the time nor safety of struggling with the court over technical issues. Time was critical. And so, in part, this new program was created.

And why Risen and the NY Time never included any of this information, including the legal thoughts of Sunstein et al., in their story is really shameful.

SMG

topsecretk9

ooops, link fixed

Cecil Turner

I wonder what you really think of this briefing...hour by hour, the Times reporting appears to be nothing more than verbatim by the leakers and the initial report is looking embarrassing, no?

Yes, the Times bubbas are obviously clueless. But that does not indicate cluelessness on the part of the leakers (in fact, the opposite). Just like Wilson's initial story, it has enough detail to enhance credibility, and provides a spin that's hard to refute directly. It smacks of very professional disinformation. (Of course, that's really hard to tell from sparse details provided by a conscience-driven leaker wrapped around a plausible narrative by a clueless journo trying to flesh out the story.)

kim

Summertime, and the livin' is easy.
Catfish jumpin, Kimbell dinner gong.
====================================

clarice

Isn't it an eye opener to watch how the NYT covered this stuff just after 9/11 and then erased the blackboard day by day hoping we'd fugettabout it?

topsecretk9

just like Wilson's initial story, it has enough detail to enhance credibility, and provides a spin that's hard to refute directly.

It's stunning really, a year is a long time, particularly in light of Clarice's link above. It's as if the story was in the vault with Rock's letter.

Les Nessman

Clarice:
"Isn't it an eye opener to watch how the NYT covered this stuff just after 9/11.."

By 'this stuff', do you mean terrorist activities, trying to get info on terrorists, etc..? If so, I certainly agree.

Wasn't Bush faulted for not 'Connecting The Dots'?

How can he connect the dots if he's not allowed to even look at the dots?

".. and then erased the blackboard day by day hoping we'd fugettabout it?"

Is the NYT really still that stupid? Will they ever understand this blogosphere thingy on the internets?

noah

Merry Christmas Kim.

r flanagan

Whatever we think of Bush's actions re
NSA (they worry me)what ought to happen
when a War President feels he needs to take
secret action , his inherent right
is "arguable" (to quote Posner), but
it's impossible to involve congress ?
Clearly Bush attempted to create his own
solution by briefing Rockefeller , Harmon et al but shouldn't there be an established procedure ?

How about the FISA court augmented with the majority and minority leaders of both houses with the President having the right of appeal to the Supremes ?


Syl

To anonymous up there who seems to be accusing me of suspecting a conspiracy to leak the NSA info, you're wrong.

If someone leaks classified info to someone not authorized to have it (the NYT for example) and the Times then calls someone else official for confirmation, if that second official confirms the program exists and gives an opinion on it, that is illegal as well. No conspiracy required.

Syl

r flanagan

To get a judgement from the Court, there has to be a case involving an American citizen who has been wrongly accused because of the program.

You can't just go the court and say: 'Is the President right here?'

clarice

Les. I think they are that stupid. It's like Kael being astonished at Reagan's win when no one she knew voted for him. Only they do it week after week--like a neurotic thinking he can do the same thing over and over and expect different results.

Lew Clark

The "known fact" thing parallels a thought I had this morning. In order to actually know if there was a crime you would have to have someone who knew, in detail, what NSA was doing and be able to bang that up against FISA and/or other laws. The only people that have done that are Bush's advisors. Not even the Democrats who were briefed were able to do that because "they were so confused by the technology and the law" to paraphrase Rockefeller.
So it's really idle speculation for those not totally in the know. But that has not stopped the left from crying "burn the witch".

clarice

And the AP just assures Alito's confirmation--LOL

[quote]Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito defended the right of government officials to order domestic wiretaps when he worked for the Reagan Justice Department, documents released Friday show.


He advocated a step by step approach to strengthening the hand of officials in a 1984 memo to the solicitor general. The strategy is similar to the one that Alito espoused for rolling back abortion rights at the margins.


The release of the memo by the National Archives comes when President Bush is under fire for secretly ordering domestic spying of suspected terrorists without a warrant.(snip)

Despite Alito's warning that the government would lose, the Reagan administration took the fight to the Supreme Court in the case of whether Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell, could be sued for authorizing a warrantless domestic wiretap to gather information about a suspected terrorist plot. The FBI had received information about a conspiracy to destroy utility tunnels in Washington and kidnap Henry Kissinger, then national security adviser.


In its court brief, the government argued for absolute immunity for the attorney general on matters of national security.


"The attorney general's vital responsibilities in connection with intelligence gathering and prevention in the field of national security are at least deserving of absolute immunity as routine prosecutorial actions taken either by the attorney general or by subordinate officials.

[/quote] Alito for national security--gasp


owl

When someone uses 'conscience-driven', only one person comes to .......never mind.

I assume the FISA judge and Rocky will be cast in the roles of Deep-Throat whistleblowers in this drama?

I want the whole tamale. Planes, prisons and spying leaks. Billions of dollars spent and they are telling everyone on the planet? No immunity unless you can show me it is the nastiest way. Blood-thirsty.

owl

clarice, not referring to your post...but TMs on immunity. BTW, nice posts over at AT.

maryrose

I feel the Alito hearings will be very interesting and unfortunately many senators will take the opportunity to pontificate on their theories instead of Advising and Consenting to the president. I will watch with interest.

clarice

Thamks. owl.

specter

Lew,

"Not even the Democrats who were briefed were able to do that because "they were so confused by the technology and the law" to paraphrase Rockefeller."

How do you know that? All we know is that Rockefeller said he sent a letter, and then the next day was trashed by Roberts who said that the latest briefing was two weeks ago and that Rocky has been basically a proponent of the program. I think it is just Rocky and Pelosi that are confused.

Specter

Well....here we are, Friday December 23, 2005, at just about 3PM and no news from Fitz. Not even a peep. I guess it won't be Merry Fitzmas for the Demoncrats after all....ahhhhhh...

arrowhead

I guess it won't be Merry Fitzmas for the Demoncrats after all....ahhhhhh...

Ho! Ho! Ho!

Merry Christmas to all ~ and thanks for this great blog and all who post here!!!

Syl

Merry Christmas, everyone!

And thank you Tom!

boris

With utmost care I wish a Merry Christmas and with reckless glee for a miserly fitzmas.

r flanagan

Syl I should have put e.g. in front of my
FISA+ suggestion.


maryrose

Well Wolf Blitzer just had an exclusive interview with Bob Novak and Novak said he was ready to tell all and then Fitz decided to continue the investigation. Otherwise no new news. Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.

Lew Clark

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. officials have secretly monitored radiation levels at Muslim sites, including mosques and private homes, since September 11, 2001 as part of a top secret program searching for nuclear bombs, U.S. News and World Report said on Friday."

It looks like the leakers will just keep on leaking until they're stopped. When is enough enough.

But, that said. Merry Christmas to all here, and I add my big thanks to Tom for this great site.

noah

Merry Xmas to JayDee, Anonymous Liberal, Marion, Katrina, Jim E., and other unwashed denizens of the Left and thanking same for their absence today.

specter

Merry Christmas to all...and to all a good fight! But seriously folks...take my wife...

Really seriously though...have a safe and happy holiday. Pray (or whatever you do) for all of our troops. On that note I'm otta here until next week.

Thanks Tom and all the regulars for making my days and evenings interesting.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame