Keith Olberman interviewed a former analyst at the National Security Agency, whisleblower Russell Tice.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#28781200

There are a couple of interviews there. Just click on them. and this has been all over the news. Do you not watch the news?

Bush authorized it though. He is the one who wanted it. he was the one in charge. to claim he didn't know, when he was "the decider," is very naive, I think.

Why do you keep asking me to cite things? Do you think I'm just making stuff up?

No, he should be applauded. Anytime our government is behaving outside of the law, SOMEONE needs to come forward. Otherwise our government turns into a shadow government that can commit all kinds of abuses against the people. That is not the kind of government we are supposed to have. that is what we fight against in other countries.

What about the leaking of Valerie Plame's name? No one was punished for that. Still haven't been. and it can most certainly be argued that is was done for political reasons, and by people very high up the food chain...

It has been like that long before Bush ever came on the scene. There are many things the masses should never be privy to. But I do agree there should be better oversight by FISA, and other entities.

That was my point. Now the next question is ...who? Was is someone higher up or just someone who got passed over for a promotion or ..a zillion other scenarios. We just don't know - therefore again we are just speculating.

I can't agree more. Someone or a group of people should be behind bars. Purely a political leak. Completely damaging to interests of national security.

That's close but no cigar, there. Pay careful attention. Tice doesn't really say much, does he? Media was monitored in some sort of "24/7" mode. Well, what does that really mean? Different metadata was collected. You're lead to believe "something's up" -- but in the end, he hasn't alleged anything. That's why the piece is headlined "Did U.S. Spy on Journalists?", not "U.S. Spied on Journalists".

Meanwhile, it would appear that Tice has a bone to pick with his former employer that has nothing to do with FISA.

Exactly why we need better "whistleblower" protection.

I would hope the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act that the Democrats introduced last session, and passed in the House (bipartisan vote, 331-94) but stalled in the Senate, will be reintroduced this year.

Bush had threatened to veto it.

Richard Armitage leaked Plame's name. Since no charges were filed despite extensive efforts of the Prosecutor in this case, one might guess that leaking the name was not unlawful.

Or one could suggest that Libby took the fall by obstructing justice and lying under oath.

But to me, this issue is irrelevant and has nothing in common with the more important issue of protecting government employees who leak (I would rather not see a leak in the press, but a better internal process to protect such employees) information on potentially illegal activities.

Was this not the interview where he talked about NSA officials listening in on personal calls from military personel to their spouses? Whoever talked about it said they would actually tell other agents so they could listen in as well, if it was juicy. hmmmm, I wonder which program I heard that on... I thought it was that one.

So many people have come out against Bush and his administration and their policies, from the very beginning when he was first elected, and people on the right always say they had an axe to grind. Well they couldn't all just be disgruntled employees. The fact that there have been so many speaks volumes, to me anyway.

I think whistleblowers need better protection as well, in government and in corporate America, but I also think it's pretty horrifying that someone could leak an active undercover intelligence agent's name to the press and not be prosecuted. That is a serious national security leak. And bush was supposed to be all about national security. The truth is, bush was about what was convenient for bush. Now he's trying to claim executive priviledge for people who worked for him in perpetuity (I'm talking about Karl Rove). The man really does think he is above the law. I want to see him knocked down off that pedestal.

I agree that someone higher than Libby (Cheney?) should be held accountable..but its not gonna happen and at this point, I would prefer to look ahead.

BTW, Undertoad...if Tice, in his recent interviews, had provided any detail beyond just the general outline of what he observed in the way of potentially illegal spying on citizens by the NSA with an authorization from Bush, he would likely have been subject to arrest under the Official Secrets Act.

What I would like to see is an independent commission like the one proposed last month by the Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

Not for punitive purposes against Bush administration officials, but rather to ensure that questionable abuses of power that occurred over the last eight years are not enabled through dubious legal justifications for Obama or any future president. Bush would be required to waive executive immunity for anyone other than himself (which is probably unconstitutional under most circumstances anyway) and I would even give sweeping immunity to lower level persons who might have been engaged in those questionable practices to get at the truth.

Something along the lines of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

He can say "I have additional, utterly convincing details which I can't reveal under the law. My hope is that a Special Prosecutor is appointed to whom I can safely give this information."

But he doesn't. He just puts his poorly-explained evidence of *something* suspicious and lets it hang there, so people will take it as confirmed that domestic spying happened.

And if it were me, and I had actual, damning evidence of illegal operations, I would accept being arrested for revealing it. How about you?

I agree that the manner in which Tice revealed what he (allegedly) knew and saw raises doubt and doesnt necessarily reflect well on him.

I dont know that I am that noble as to potentially risk 5-10 years in jail for crimes against the "people" committed by higher ups. I would like to think so.

I do believe that it is essential that the fact surrounding the Bush administration actions and their unilateral interpretation of presidential "war powers" (particularly when Congress had not declared a "state of war") be brought to light.

Which is why I believe that these many Bush memorandum be made public and part of an investigation such as that proposed in the Commission described above.

Not for the purpose of putting Bush officials on trial, but for putting further safeguards in place to restore the executive/legislative checks and balances and prevent such actions by any future president.

So you don't bush officials should be prosecuted if they are found guilty of committing a crime?

What I find completely unacceptable is the attitude of so many people, including apparently President Obama, to not want to get to the bottom of what went on, and to prosecute anyone and everyone guilty of a crime. That's like saying, oh, let's just let the murderer or rapist go (or Bernie Madoff for that matter), because you know, it's in the past, and we should just move on.

Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not. If we aren't willing to go after the most powerful people in the country (in government and business) for committing crimes, then we should throw out the lawbooks for everyone. Otherwise this is NOT a free country, and we nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites.

Prosecutors at every level make value judgments all the time as to whether it is in the public interest to proceed or not with particular cases of alleged criminal activity. In other cases, they compromise (offer plea bargains) to get at the truth.

I think the potential cost to the country of having criminal trials that will be perceived by many as highly partisan, and creating a greater divide within the country than already exists, outweighs the benefits. In these troubled times, that is the last thing we need.

I want documents declassified and a structure in place to review the Bush administration's actions from a bi-partisan legal perspective....for the purpose of providing safeguards, if necessary, to prevent those actions from being repeated.

If that happens and the truth is brought to light, historians and the people will make the final judgement of the last eight years.

I can live with that.

A fine-toothed partisan fishing expedition could seriously affect Obama's ability to get things done. Prosecute the big and obvious, start with the ones with real, valid cites (hint hint), and let the rest go, no harm no foul. That's how it works in the real world.

The biggest and most obvious ones were tucked in safely behind a wall of plausible deniability ("Mr. President, you dont need to know that.")

Well I don't know. I guess I think war crimes are a lot more serious than everyone else. And abuse of power. And trampling over the Constitution, when you are sworn to defend it.

If we don't get to the bottom of the whole war crimes issue, we will never regain our trust with the rest of the world. That is just my opinion, but I feel very strongly about it.

He has admitted in interviews that we tortured people. How is that hiding behind anything?

Certainly you don't believe for one minute that Obama, or for that matter Clinton did not receive the same treatment. The days of Kennedy are long gone.

Bush wanted to use an Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) issued by Congress immediately after 9/11 (and then a second AUMF for the invasion of Iraq) to be able to justify any subsequent action in the name of fighting terrorism, including spying on citizens and denial of basic rights to and torture of detainees.

So he goes to his AG and asks for a legal opinion to justify broader powers than those specified in the AUMF. In my opinion (and I am not an attorney) the resulting memos were crafted in such a way that it provided the plausible deniability ("oh sorry, those underlings who implemented my orders just misunderstood my intent").

And he had the balls to send his staff to get that legal cover while his AG is in a hospital bed groggy from just coming out of surgery.

The role of the AG is to enforce the law on behalf of the "people", not provide a president with justification or lega cover to skirt the law in future actions.

Clinton....show me where he ever asked his AG to write a legal opinion to provide cover for any future actions he might want to take.

Obama...show me where he has done the same in the last two weeks?

Kennedy....I would have been a supporter but I was too young at the time, but I think having your brother serve as AG is a bad idea.

Sorry but there really is no evidence to support that Bush specifically said, "Hey guys, go figure out how to spy on citizens and deny of basic rights to and torture detainees." That is a fantasy of people who hate Bush. Those were events which evolved over time with subsequent results. It was not till much later that it was evident in the vagueness of the directives that people began to realize what they had unleashed.

Broader powers, sure, but who says he set out to prevent basic rights and to torture? Certainly there must be a smoking gun right?

And they were denied.

Sure, and as we discussed before Reno did the same thing.

It is not so much about what Obama has not done yet, it is about the history of all presidents back at least to the days of Kennedy, whom was more involved in the day to day operations of military and clandestine activity, where they all use plausible denial.

That is why I believe that these memos, written by DOJ attorney John Woo et al, in the months after 9/11 could very well be the evidence and should be declassified:
The public has a right to know and it would pose no threat to national security.

The Executive branch constantly gets DOJ legal review of things. It's supposed to work that way.

I dont think many previous DoJ legal opinions were kept secret in order to allow subsequent actions.

I believe there is evidence that Bush reversed the process. along the lines of (paraprashing) "I know the law says we have to abide by our international treaty obligations, I want a DoJ memo to give me the cover to get around it in our war on terrorism."

All the more reason to have the above cited memos declassified.

I agree they should be declassified. In 50 years. Maybe more. I do not support the idea the public needs to know every tidbit of info. That is what we elected officals for. Let them provide the oversight. It does not always need to be released for every arm-chair Monday morning quarterback to review so they can weave conspiracy theory into it. I would never support that.

How can Congress provide oversight w/o access to these documents?

I guess we have different beliefs on transparency and accountability as being in the best interest of the people and ensuring rule by law.

Select committees should have some oversight. Anyone with a computer and a FOIA request should not.

Shouldnt the courts ultimately determine when the 4th amendment applies, not a DoJ attorney opinion?
How do you ensure the rule of law when actions are based on secret memos that may be questionable in their interpretation of the law?

Sure other presidents received DoJ opinion memos, but I dont know that they were kept from the public.

How do you know what may or may not have happened if the memos are secret? Those are best taken care of by people with appropriate authority and oversight. Not by armchair quarterbacks second guessing every move.

You didnt answer my question.

How do you ensure that the rule of law is followed when actions are based on secret memos (including being withheld from Congress) that may be questionable in their interpretation of the law?

Congress cant conduct appropriate authority and oversight w/o having access to documents that explain WTF the administration is doing or intending to do based on internal (and unilateral) legal interpretations of the law.

These documents have been withheld from Congress..that is a fact! On every request by the Judiciary Committees in both the House and Senate, the previous White House denied the request with dubious claims of executive privilege.

I can't and don't defend the action of withholding the information from the Judiciary Committees. I do defend the right of government not to release infromation to the general public.

I guess that is one NO vote for the Freedom of Information Act

I defend the peoples right to know unless there are clear and unambiguous threats to national security or the invasion of personal privacy by the release of information.

No.

That is way to broad. There are many reasons not to release information. So you want to see the information and they you get to tell us whether or not it would be a threat to national security? There are other people who are paid to do that. You just aren't one of them. And special interest groups are not either. There is a system in place for this process. It works.

I agree that the system will work if FOIA is returned to its original intent as indicated in Obama's memo.

It did not work for the last eight years when Bush, through an executive order rather than by asking Congress to change the law if he thought it needed changing after 9/11, radically and unilaterally altered the intent of FOIA.

That is not how the framers of the Constitution envisioned the system of checks and balances working.

Objective citation please.

Controversial opinion.

No more citations for you...you are my citation probation...I already provided this:

The reason Obama issued this Memorandum, was to make it clear that the previous administration's more restrictive FOIA policies would no longer be the policies and practices of the White House.

It seems like common sense to me that it would not have been necessary or need "renewing the commitment" if he believed FOIA was working as envisioned in the law...but perhaps you take it as a controversial opinion.

So you state this:

and can't back it up? Ok, I guess we are done.

Without an objective citation we are forced to do the research ourselves. My research so far: there was no Bush EO changing FOIA to make it more restrictive.

People complain about an October 2001 Ashcroft memo:
(In short: if your agency denies a FOIA request for national security reasons, DOJ will back you. Ooh scary, radical creeping Fascism!)

Now notice, this memo did not produce law as an EO would, but was simply a statement about how the DoJ would operate on FOIA issues.

Bush's only EO on FOIA was Executive Order 13392, in which Bush set up Chief FOIA Officers at each of 90 federal agencies and asked for FOIA improvement plans from each agency; it was intended to improve FOIA responsiveness. Obama's memo refers to the reports on efficiency generated as a result of EO 13392.

A Memorandum -- and not an EO. An EO would be needed if the Bush administration had issued an EO making the FOIA more restrictive. Takes an EO to reverse an EO, not a Memorandum.

Bottom line: there was no Bush EO. And if you believe there was, this Memorandum can't override it.

Never ignore a citation request.

Sometimes providing a cite could make your whole argument fall apart. We wouldn't want that now, would we?

Daaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmn.

This guy provides cite after cite and in between he throws in a little conjecture and opinion, but mostly he has been citing his stuff...which in a previous post Merc deliberately ignored. Therefore he says he wont cite for Merc anymore. So when Merc asks for one he didn't get it. I don't blame him.

Yeah, I couldn't believe that one either, Pico. He pointedly ignores all previous cites, now he's the downtrodden ignored citation request guy?

sheesh

Undertoad..I stand corrected on a Bush EO. Thank you!

The Obama memorandum simply affirms the policy direction of the administration that there be a presumption in favor of disclosure.

In my opinion and the opinion of many "good government" groups, the Ashcroft memo provided the opposite policy direction... that agencies should first look for any legal justification NOT to provide disclosure.

It if looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...its new or changed duck.

my statement was a general one in response to UT's last line. There are a couple people around the cellar who wouldn't provide a cite to save their life.

No more cite probation...i was just making a point.

Re, all that said... from what I've read, a new AG generally issues a new policy on these things by memo. But it is a remarkable thing -- and when I say remarkable, I mean in a good sense -- that O issued the memo himself. It gives the policy much more weight. It's something that he will be judged upon by the responsiveness of the whole Federal government, and it means much more than a campaign promise.

Perhaps its a matter of tone.

The Reno memo suggested that requests were only to be denied if there was “foreseeable harm” in releasing the documents.

The Ashcroft memo suggested that agecies could deny FOIA requests as long as there was a “sound legal basis” for doing so. Ashcroft issues a second memo after 9/11

From a GAO report on the impact of the Ashcroft memo:
The Obama memo restores and promotes a "presumption of disclosure" rather than seeking a "sound legal basis" not to disclose.

The more open the government...the more accountable!

I see no evidence that the reduction under Reno or Ashcroft resulted in harm or cover-up of information that was not released. So far it seems like they did the right thing and tightened up a very loose process of FOIA releases. So where is the problem? Your cite says that the GAO found that "sound legal basis" for withholding information was the standard by which the various departments would be defended. Sounds prudent to me.

I guess you dont see the difference between the Reno and Ashcroft memos and the respective policy approach they proscribe in responding to FOIA requests.

Or the fact the Obama memo restores a policy similar to Reno and vastly different from Ashbrook.

We simply disagree....I want a more open and accountable government. You want to be more prudent.

Thats cool! I accept that.

But when making a case that there has been NO CHANGE by Obama....I hope you will read all three memos again. The Obama memo represents change...perhaps change you dont like, but change, nonetheless.

I'm just glad my guy is in now.

He's not your guy. He is The Man now. He is everyone's guy, just like Bush was, whether any of us want him or not. I am willing to give him the benifit of the doubt except when I see him doing the same things done by previous politicians. I am going to call him out on every thing I have heard other bitch about for the last 30 years.

Well you just never know Merc. Maybe he'll do a good job, and you don't want to end up with egg on your face because you criticized too soon do you?

Unlike popular belief about me, I want him to be the most successful president eva. EVA! But I know better. Keep your eye on the ball.

Sounds like a bitch fest!

It might be fun as long as one maintains some level of objectivity and recognizes that factual arguments differ from unsubstantiated opinions...both of which have their place at the party.

Aussies are invited to the bitch fest?

I havent partied with Ali in ages!

How can you know better? Do you have inside information? He's only just begun, so I don't see how you can possibly make any kind of rational judgement about his abilities just yet. Give him a few months and then start, but don't go making unfounded judgements just yet.

Are you playing Karen Carpenter at this bitch fest?

Oh yeah...I come to all the good bitch fests around here. If I don't, I have to worry about my reputation as a bitch slipping. ;)

I wont be doing too much partying for a little while though. I've got a little under two months and I'll be having a baby. :D

I can't sing that well. lol