Justice Department objected to secret spying program.
By on Jan 1st, 2006 at 10:52 am
Justice Department objected to secret spying program.
James B. Comey, former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s top deputy, “objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight.” Comey’s reluctance prompted then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to visit Ashcroft, who was recovering from surgery, in the hospital to try to get sign-off on the program from him. It doesn’t appear as if they were successful.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
37 Responses to “Justice Department objected to secret spying program.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
the administration really had to shop this secret spying program around to try and find someone to sign on to it to give it a little bit of backing to make look legal. tom dashcle, the A.G.'s top general, ashcroft, sen. rockfeller, sen. spector, all have doubts about its legality and very few are supporting it 100%.
January 1st, 2006 at 10:59 amWow, and even the theo-fascist under partial sedation was reluctant to sign it.
That tells you something right there.
January 1st, 2006 at 10:59 amSo there's a one neocon who actually read the Constitution... no wonder he and his boss are former
January 1st, 2006 at 11:00 amThat would explain Ashcroft's departure from the "team" and the appointment of another crony Gonzales. When/if it ever comes out we will see that even some of the wingnuts wouldn't go along. See, it's illegal. Impeach the chimp before he invades another country. He is insane.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:09 amThis can't be true. I've been watching CNN all morning and they haven't said one word about it.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:40 amIt's on the front page of the NY Times.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:43 amwow... so does this mean the Justice Dept. is now investigating itself? obviously, whatever probe they're launching would reveal their own history with this issue...
January 1st, 2006 at 11:52 amCounting maiden aunts, probably 750 million.
January 1st, 2006 at 11:52 amBush is a retarded chimpanzee. That branch of the family tree has some seriously damaged genes. Oh wait.....that whole family has broken chromazone links & genes.
January 1st, 2006 at 12:01 pmIs Comey the guy who appointed Patrick Ftizgerald?
January 1st, 2006 at 12:03 pmPitchforks and torches. Carts of neocons in the public square.
January 1st, 2006 at 12:06 pmthis little bushco/ashcroft/comey vignette perfectly describes the bush administration... if you don't get the answers you want, if the facts don't match your view of reality, if someone gets in your way, you get somebody to give you the answer you're looking for, you change the facts to suit your needs of the moment, you go to someone else, even if they're hospitalized to undergo major surgery...
if you have ever had a question about how and why the bush administration selects its nominees for senior positions, this story tells you everything you need to know...
January 1st, 2006 at 12:09 pmAnd, yes, I DO take it personally
Where are the trolls this fine New Year?
I thought they said only liberals consider the spying illegal. Whats this, another Republican saying its illegal?
January 1st, 2006 at 12:18 pmMarie #18, Yes Comey appointed Fitz.
Here's his link. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html
The memorandum is a PDF file that must be saved to your desktop for viewing.
This is good. Comey is speaking out and I'm sure Fitz will too.
Rove should be indicted soon, I hope Cheney goes down with him.
January 1st, 2006 at 12:30 pmdoes anybody know how Fitzgerald's look into Rove is moving. There's been no news for quite a while.
January 1st, 2006 at 12:35 pmI have been trying to make sense of why Bushco would do the spying illegally with all the risks involved when he could have done basically the same thing legally and fairly easy at that.
Does anyone know the answer to this question?
There has to be more to this than the old my way or the highway mentality and screw you if you object.
January 1st, 2006 at 12:37 pm#24 you hit it....I've been a supporter of the administration but simply don't see why that avenue wasn't pursued. I believe there is even a 72 hour window for the search verification.
I don't support the administration on this, the reasons are valid of course but the methodology fails to live up to the easily attained access.
puzzling
January 1st, 2006 at 12:40 pmIf noted-Kool-Ade drinker Ashcroft wouldn't sign off, I have 3 words for you: Bill of Impeachment.
January 1st, 2006 at 12:41 pmRegarding my #23, I was questioning because, by today's news reports, Bushie is leaving Craford to return to DC earlier than expected. Wondered if this had something to do with Rove's indictment.
January 1st, 2006 at 12:44 pm#24 I'll take a crack at a reason. With all due respect to believers, the answer might rest with his devine prerogative. There is something odd about this guy. I don't believe it is just that God talks to him either. He is mentally unstable. He should be impeached before he can invade another country.
January 1st, 2006 at 1:03 pm#28. I disagree. I think there is a better reason. Because the Bushies wanted to use this as an excuse to wiretap Sen.John McCain as well as some of the Democrats. No FISA judge would authorize that (I hope).
January 1st, 2006 at 1:12 pm#24, I think feeler at #29 has it right. Bush&Co wants to spy on liberal organizations, anti-war protesters, outspoken Democrats, all Muslims, and other American citizens/groups who express opposition in some form to policies of this government.
January 1st, 2006 at 1:20 pmfeeler, Bubble boy is a brutal dictator. Spying on citizens who disent is a character trait of brutal dictators. And like california said, he's mental.
January 1st, 2006 at 1:22 pmMarie, we've contacted D.A.W.N. and asked them to organize a protest of Bubble boys visit to Chicago (Friday). If you can, drop them an email and make the same suggestion.
January 1st, 2006 at 1:25 pmListening in on the opposition for the purposes of "preemptive trumping" is the best reason I have heard so far on why it was done the way it was.
And if so I cannot wait until the list of names of who was listened to comes to light. That would be like exploding a nuclear device on the whole conservative power agenda.
January 1st, 2006 at 1:43 pmSusan, Not In Our Name sends me Emails. Did you see this?
January 1st, 2006 at 1:57 pm
I can think of a number of possible reasons why the administration might not take the legal route in collecting foreign intelligence within the U.S., but without further evidence they are all speculation.
1) The technology involved is so broadband that there is no way to get warrants for the number of wiretaps involved. If the surveillance amounts to running every phone call and email through an electronic filter looking for keywords or specific phone numbers or email addresses, then there is no way to get warrants for every wiretap. If such a system is used then only if the filter is tripped would there be the need for human intervention to assess the level of the intelligence. Only if the filter is tripped would there be the need for a warrant. But it is likely that even in this case there would be just too many wiretaps to make getting warrants feasible.
The remedy in this case (if one is concerned with staying on the right side of the law) is to get the law changed to permit purely electro-mechanical monitoring of electronic communications without a warrant and allow a phone call or email to or from a suspect number or address to constitute "probable cause". If one is serious about combatting terrorism, it would probably be possible to get a law that would permit pre-approved warrants for a limited time with this level of probable cause. After this limited time, one would need a more conventional warrant to continue surveillance.
2) The legal route is not available because no probable cause can be shown against the targets of the surveillance and no warrants would be issued. This would be the case if surveillance was being carried out agains anti-war groups, journalists, political opponents, etc. This, of course, is simply illegal and violates FISA and the fourth amendment.
The legal remedy here is impeachment, indictment, and imprisonment. There is no way to create a law to allow this since it would be declared unconstitutional the first time it was challenged.
3) Obeying the law (getting warrants, even with a 72 hour grace period) is too cumbersome and time-consuming. The paperwork involved is too onerous to make it worthwhile to file thousands of applications for warrants for short-term surveillance.
The legal remedy here is to change the law to make the paperwork less burdensome, perhaps by extending the retroactive time period for applying for a warrant.
4) Legality is not an issue for the administration. The president is above the law and is not bound by congressional (FISA) or constitutional (4th amendment) restraints.
There is no legal remedy here. The only solution is outlined by the Declaration of Independence: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it".
January 1st, 2006 at 2:43 pmYou can wire tap anyone, but you need to get a warrant in something like 72 hours?
January 1st, 2006 at 3:38 pm#38 Marie, I know of the meeting on Belmont. D.A.W.N. responded to our email today. They said that a protest will take place on the 6th at the Board of Trade.
Its not posted on their site yet (still obtaining permits and such).
We only found out today that Bubble boy is coming to town. Stay tuned, you should be recieving an alert in the next day or so.
I can't make the meeting on Weds but I'm sure I will be alerted to the conclusions of the meeting.
I'm creative enough to design my own sign. It will read something like..."Impeach Bush and Cheney, their jail cells are ready and Bubba is looking foward to meeting them".
I'll have my recorder and camera ready to document what the mainstream media refuses to report.
January 1st, 2006 at 4:28 pmYou can wire tap anyone, but you need to get a warrant in something like 72 hours?
Yes, under FISA the president is authorized to wiretap anyone (including U.S. persons), anywhere, anytime as long as a warrant is applied for within 72 hours. That's why the excuse that obeying FISA wasn't possible because speed was essential to proper surveillance won't fly. What is too slow about "immediately"?
January 1st, 2006 at 4:31 pm#43 -- I agree on all counts (except perhaps the last one under exceptional circumstances).
But I wasn't trying to argue that the law should have been broken, only trying to provide some reasons why the administration may have felt it was justified in breaking the law. Because break the law it certainly did. If the administration feels that it can't work effectively within the law, then it should get the law changed. If it feels that it must break the law, then it should be willing to take the consequences. Sometimes the law can be set aside in the name of justice. But that has to be judged by competent authority. And in our constitutional system, if the excutive decides to break the law, then the executive is not competent authority for excusing itself. That's why impeachment was provided for in the constitution.
January 1st, 2006 at 4:47 pmSusan, the BOT is the site mentioned now, as is the Hilton (I think that's where the boy-king might be speaking). Your sign language is good -- I hope it gets seen on TV.
January 1st, 2006 at 5:08 pmthe MSM tends to ignore those who protest Bush&Co, at best, they pooh-pooh us and say our numbers are less than they are.
I only learned on Friday that he was going to be in town.
If wishing could make it so, this will be one heckuva lousy year for GWB.
This has been a good discussion and basically it all comes back to the only relevant reason for ignoring FISA is to spy on individuals that could not have been approved under FISA for any reason. This would be in keeping with all the other "forcing of results" to a controlled end that has been occurring during this administration.
The only real course of action now is to find out who these individuals were that would not have been approved and get this information to someone like Fitzgerald for prosecution.
Watching this unfold will be quite entertaining for the 2006 midterms.
January 1st, 2006 at 5:31 pmThis has been a good discussion and basically it all comes back to the only relevant reason for ignoring FISA is to spy on individuals that could not have been approved under FISA for any reason. This would be in keeping with all the other "forcing of results" to a controlled end that has been occurring during this administration.
The only real course of action now is to find out who these individuals were that would not have been approved and get this information to someone like Fitzgerald for prosecution.
Watching this unfold will be quite entertaining for the 2006 midterms.
January 1st, 2006 at 5:31 pmdo you hear something
January 1st, 2006 at 6:22 pmbuzz click static fuzz
something tone ring
machine monitoring
dirty deeds undone
run neo-cons run
I believe this house of cards will fall in similar fashion to McCarthy's
January 1st, 2006 at 7:22 pmThink Progress » Justice Department objected to secret spying program....
Think Progress » Justice Department objected to secret spying program.
James B. Comey, former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s top deputy, “objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program and refused ......
February 4th, 2006 at 4:21 pm