WSJ Erroneously Claims Congress Could Have “Blown the Whistle” On Warrantless Spying
WSJ Erroneously Claims Congress Could Have “Blown the Whistle” On Warrantless Spying
In an editorial defending President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretapping, the conservative Wall Street Journal argues that members of Congress should have blown the whistle on the program if they were concerned about the President overextending his executive power:
Key members of the relevant Congressional oversight committees were informed at least 12 times. … In short, if there were any real abuses going on here, there were plenty of people in the loop and able to blow the whistle. [Wall Street Journal, 1/10/06]
The editorial ignores the fact that members of Congress were not allowed to discuss the program, either with their staff or other members, much less the public.
Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) told Vice President Cheney that he was unable to discuss the program with his own legal counsel:
As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities. [Letter to the Vice President, 7/17/03]
Last month, Rockefeller pointed out that he also couldn’t tell other Intelligence Committee members:
The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees. [Press Release, 12/19/05]
And the President did not even inform former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-FL) that the FISA courts would be circumvented:
I was not notified that they were going to abandon the FISA process and utilize warrantless intercepts of conversations. [Miami Herald, 12/21/05]
There was no opportunity for anyone “in the loop,” including Congress, to blow the whistle. That was a big part of the problem. The administration was violating the law without any oversight.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
IMPEACH!!!!!!!!! IMPEACH!!!!!!! IMPEACH!!!!!!!
January 10th, 2006 at 11:26 amThis is interesting. The WSJ is saying that Congressional Democrats could have blown the whistle on illegal activities… at the same time, the Bush Administration has launched an investigation of the whistleblowers on the grounds that what they endangered national security.
So what is it wingers? Were the Democrat representatives “patriots” for not blowing the whistle, or were they wrong not to blow the whistle… which one is it?
January 10th, 2006 at 11:30 amWhy is the administration controlling what can be shared with other members of Congress?
They first removed security clearances of most of the members of Congress, then tell the remaining ones a vague outline of what is going on.
Now those who had some information screwed-up? Right!
January 10th, 2006 at 11:47 amPeople, we need to really band together as a nation and not as a party to stop this administration. I have been writting all of the Senators and Congressman I can, and most (if not all) of the Republicans are supporting the illegal wire tapping and claiming it is legal. We as a country need to stop this now! Please write as many of Congres that you can, as we need to show that the american people are not going to stand by and let our country be taken over by King George.
Here is a reply from one of the Senators, and the next post will have my original letter:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the National Security Agency (NSA) wiretap program. It is good to hear from you.
Mr. RemoveBush , I appreciate you sharing your concerns with me. However, it is important to note that the leak of this program has put our national security in danger. News reports on these events revealed general sources and intelligence-gathering methods, giving terrorists a reason to change tactics and operations and putting our national security at risk.
Please be sure that this program only applied to calls involving Al Qaeda suspect or those with terrorist ties on international calls, and that the purpose of the project was to prevent terrorist plots. Please be sure that neighbors are not spying on neighbors. These wiretaps are only used if one party is a known or suspected terrorist and the call is international.
Foreign intelligence operations, when there is a significant national security interest, fall within the bounds of privacy rights and interpretation of the 4 th amendment to the Constitution. While this program was legal, I agree that additional justification from the Administration is in order. Judicial review is an important part of our federal law and I assure you that I will be monitoring this situation closely as discussion on this issue continues.
Thanks again for contacting me and please do not hesitate to contact me in the future with any questions or concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
January 10th, 2006 at 11:55 amConrad Burns
United States Senator
Does anybody from the MSM actually do work? Investigate, probe into the story, ask people questions? Anybody? That Liberal MSM….always giving excuses to the Repubs. Right trolls? That makes sense. About as much sense as male nipples.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:58 amExcellent Point, D. Fox. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Isn’t the President also limiting the power and restricting the governance of the legislative branch? Isn’t there some modicum of violation to freedom of speech or consulting legal counsel?
January 10th, 2006 at 12:04 pmThe WSJ is a wholly owned subsidiary of the criminal bushite junta as are the Fox propaganda network and Clear Channel…
The ONLY thing that right wing rag is fit for is as sewage paper…
January 10th, 2006 at 12:16 pmWSJ would love Dems to blow the whistle, it would cost their jobs and the WSJ could push for more Republicans in office. Plus, they would have their next five editorials about what traitors we all are.
A secret whistleblower just spoils their fun.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:30 pm#4
RemoveBush,
Thanks for posting Sen. Burns’ response. As many of you surely are, I am still waiting for someone from the right to explain how, as Sen. Burns puts it,“News reports on these events revealed general sources and intelligence-gathering methods, giving terrorists a reason to change tactics and operations and putting our national security at risk.”
As I have posted elsewhere, wiretapping is not a big secret. All you have to do is crank up the ol’ search engine; from a posted in a story on CNN.com on Oct. 8, 2001:
The proposed PATRIOT (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act would provide investigators with more flexibility and greater access to high-tech tools to pursue wiretaps of mobile phones, interception of e-mail messages, and monitoring of Web surfing and other PC-based communications.
Source: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/10/08/privacy.poll.idg/index.html
January 10th, 2006 at 12:36 pmIsn’t that what a whistleblower does? Violating the “law” if necessary to achieve the greater good of exposing the real violations of the law?
The WSJ is partially correct in pointing out that these members of Congress could have put their careers on the line and blown the whistle.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:37 pmDumb Fox,
This is just good strategy for the righties. You know, attack on all fronts. Make every possible argument, even if one contradicts another. Who’s going to notice?
dlet – Now, come on. You know that everybody in the MSM works extremely hard at keeping his/her career on the upward path. Digging into stories does not help keep the party invites coming.
January 10th, 2006 at 12:40 pmRe: #2
“So what is it wingers? Were the Democrat representatives “patriots†for not blowing the whistle, or were they wrong not to blow the whistle… which one is it?”
Not relevant. The question is whether the Democrats could have leaked the info, not about what the fallout might have been. If this is such a massive violation of our rights and the law, the Dems should have been leaking from day one, and “damn the torpedos”.
This is a very weak article, and the fact that all the various left-wing myrmidons that seem to spend evry waking moment here on this site aren’t here singing its praises is proof to that fact.
Later,
January 10th, 2006 at 12:42 pmGlad to see ya back in the saddle, Payson! Git ‘er doooooooooooone!
January 10th, 2006 at 1:02 pm#12 – It is relevant.
Your monkey-boys in the WSJ have set up a strawman that depicts the Dems as enablers of potentially illegal spying. Your monkey-boy in the White House has slammed the leakers as a threat to national security. I just want you guys to tell me if the Congressional Dems were doing the right thing by not leaking, or the wrong thing.
Simple really.
January 10th, 2006 at 1:08 pmRe: #14
And my point is that, if the Dems were so concerned about this at the time, they should have raised all holy hell about it at the time. The fact that they didn’t tells me that, for the most part, they weren’t all that worried.
Even Rockefeller, looks like the only thing he did was scribble out a quick CYA note and stick a copy of it in the vault. If he was so concerned, why aren’t there other letters being dragged out? Why don’t we see a running commentary of his concerns over the past 2 years.
But we don’t, which tells me he had some initial qualms, but nothing strong enough to get all worked up over, at least not until it could be used to attack the President.
Later,
January 10th, 2006 at 1:23 pmThis is interesting. The WSJ is saying that Congressional Democrats could have blown the whistle on illegal activities… at the same time, the Bush Administration has launched an investigation of the whistleblowers on the grounds that what they endangered national security.
The investigation is not about whistleblowing … it’s about who was whistleblown to. There is a process for Federal employees to become officially recognized as whistleblowers through the US Office of the Inspector General. Recognition by the OIG protects the employee from retaliatory employment actions, and triggers an OIG investigation of the charges made by the whistleblower.
As far as I know, this process could have been used by any Senator or Congressperson who so desired … not being able to discuss the program with others (national security or “top secret”) is different than bringing accusations of illegal practices.
Payson, do you know otherwise? … it doesn’t appear you addressed the above process…
January 10th, 2006 at 1:47 pmPravda is doing a fine job of blaming the victims.
Blow the Whistle – Treason!
Don’t blow the whistle – Gutless!
Seems they have little to say about the twin Republican Syndicate disasters occurring in Iraq and Washington, DC, though.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:11 pmPelosi, Reid, Rockefeller and Graham were never told that Bush was authorizing wiretaps without the FISA Court, so they were just used by Bush as a cover, so he could claim he had Congressional approval!
Also they were informed that they could tell no-one about anything told to them in secret, so a kind of Catch-22!
In a way they were blackmailed to remain silent!
Did one of them leak to the press? I doubt it because they did not know all the facts and were cowed into silence too!
January 10th, 2006 at 2:32 pm#2, #12 DF, as usual, you’ve got it right. The WSJ wants it both ways. Condemn whistleblowers for exposing the truth, and condemn them for not. Forget that Congress was forbidden to speak of this to anyone, hence the Rockefeller handwritten (not dictated) note.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:34 pmLeaking the name of a CIA spy = OK
Leaking that illegal spying is going on = not OK
This is insanely silly! Members of congress who were informed of the program had plenty of ways to do something about it.
1) Pull the Senate into secret session and complain about a classified program without offering details. Continue until something changes.
2) Place blanket holds on all appointments until something changes. No details of the program need be revealed.
3) Stall all legislation until something changes. No details of the program need be revealed.
4) Demand closed hearings with the Chairman of the Sen Intelligence Committee. Go ahead and express your concerns here – reveal all you want. For cryin’ out loud – any of the dems on the sen intell comm could have done this at any point over the past two years and they never did. Doesn’t that tell skeptics here anything?
5) Refuse to fund intelligence activities. Tell your fellow congressmen that you can’t reveal details but are requesting that all of your associates fail to vote for cloture on the Defense Auth Bill. – simple.
etc. etc. I’ll betcha Robert Byrd could come up with 100 more ways to influence the admin with congressional action, even when it involves classified info.
This is BS claiming they couldn’t do anything because they couldn’t talk about it. There are plenty of ways to talk about a classified program without revealing classified information. And if classified info had to be discussed, it could legally have been discussed in a closed meeting of the Sen Intell Committee.
Basicaly the problem here is one of two things:
The dem congressmen did not think there was anything significantly wrong with the program, sufficient to exercise any of their power.
or
The dem congressmen are such dolts they are not aware of any of the many parliamentarian moves they could have made to influence and modify this program.
It is a fact that the informed congressmen were willing participants in the program and did nothing to hinder it. They should be ashamed if they thought the program was illegal but did nothing. In fact, they should be impeached if that is what they now proclaim, “I knew it was illegal and destroying our civil rights but it was secret so I couldn’t do anything.” This is so preposterous it is laughable.
January 10th, 2006 at 2:38 pmWhy is it up to the Democrats to spill the beans? Why isn’t the WSJ harping on the Republicans, who were “briefed” at the same time? What is their excuse for keeping silent? Why aren’t they getting a load of crap from all and sundry? I just don’t get it. It only seems fair, under the circumstances. Oh…… never mind.
January 10th, 2006 at 5:27 pmHey Cyra:
I imagine the excuse most repubs would use (who were briefed) would be that they ‘kept silent’ because they didn’t see anything wrong with the program. (It has not been universally agreed that there was anything illegal going on.)
And when you ask why the repubs aren’t ‘getting a load of crap …” are you just making a joke? They’ve gotten so much crap it would take a truckload of pampers to contain it all!
January 10th, 2006 at 6:06 pmwell in all fairness doesn’t this reveal a lot about the two mindsets involved…
January 10th, 2006 at 6:22 pmif they had concerns why didn’t they just break the law and their personal oaths… that’s what we’d do if we didn’t like something …
Ignorant:
There was no need for anyone, senators or NSA whistleblowers, to break the law or oaths to do something about the program.
As has been stated, the NSA has a specific program to protect those who want to reveal perceived lawbreaking within the agency. Whistleblowers who went to the NY Times broke the law, but they didn’t have to.
And as I pointed out, Senators have enormous power to influence the administration without breaking ther law or their personal oaths. Those dem senators who were informed about the program either didn’t see anything wrong with it, or they don’t understand the capabilities of their position, which is pretty pathetic. I wonder how long the dem power structure is going to stick with the incompetent Jay Rockefeller…..? he has really let them all down.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:38 pm#24 Jerry: “Senators have enormous power to influence the administration…”? This administration? They aren’t influenced by anybody outside of the inner circle, let alone Democratic Senators! What’s pathetic is that no one in either party can get through to the Bush administration/WHIG cabal.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:53 pm#25,Jane is right. No one can get through to this cabal in the White House — he listens to no one outside his circle.
January 10th, 2006 at 6:59 pmCertainly, he doesn’t pay any heed to Democrats.
Just look at the so-called outreach he did the other day with former State Dept. officials — he gave them ten minutes (!) and then adjourned with them for a photo op.
#25- Nothing can get through this administration beside cronies and lobbyists. Not the rule of law, congress, what the majority of what Americans want, nothing, They have their own agenda. Remember Bush saying “we’re not nation builders”, so what do they do? They say “We need warrants to wiretap”, so what do they do? This “president” only listens to a hanful of cronies and neo-cons. It’s time for impeachment.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:03 pmSeems to me that:
Harry Reid single-handedly shut down the senate some time ago to protest a lack of progress in investigating the use of pre-war intelligence. This is the type of power that I am writing about.
John McCain was recently able to get the pres to sign onto a defense auth that included anti-torture provisions that the pres was formerly opposed to.
The pres agreed to changes to the No Child Left Behind act that were proposed by T Kennedy and his dog splash.
Pres dropped his social security reform proposals when faced with stiff opposition.
I could go on and on. I’m not byuying what you are selling …
January 10th, 2006 at 7:04 pmWhistleblower protection? Now that is FUNNY!! Just ask Joe Wilson, or his wife. Or Bunnatine Greenhouse, or maybe Colleen Rowley. I am sure they would have glowing reviews about how whistleblower protection laws saved their jobs, and their reputations! Yuppers, those silly Dems should have had faith in the safety clearly demonstrated by what happened to all those who just knew they were safe from retribution. As W said, “Fool me once,….Won’t get fooled again.” Can I get a witness?!?
January 10th, 2006 at 8:39 pm#28
Ha ha!
Harry Reid single-handedly shut down the senate some time ago to protest a lack of progress in investigating the use of pre-war intelligence. This is the type of power that I am writing about.
And what good did it do? Still no progress. Haven’t heard much about it in quite “some time.”
John McCain was recently able to get the pres to sign onto a defense auth that included anti-torture provisions that the pres was formerly opposed to.
McCain is a Repub. Doesn’t count. Besides, read my last paragraph.
The pres agreed to changes to the No Child Left Behind act that were proposed by T Kennedy and his dog splash.
Pres dropped his social security reform proposals when faced with stiff opposition.
These last two…no, the entire list, is baby sh*t compared to the issue of ordering the NSA to wiretap without warrants. No one involved in the situations you list was involved in a veil of secrecy…nor were the situations themselves.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:07 pmIt is indeed time for impeachment. The House won’t do it until it changes power and that may or may not happen until 2007. The Senate will never do it unless it means their careers are in jeopardy also. Conyers is holding more hearings on the NSA spying, but we know how his last hearing went nowhere. I think that was one where Sensenbrenner turned off the lights.
January 10th, 2006 at 9:19 pmWhen I think of the additional harm that Bush&Co. can wreak in another year, it is too frightening. He is a reckless, powerful, and extremely dangerous man.
We must put him out of office. But we are not even sure we can retake any part of Congress until next year — What can we do now?
Marie: post 31 > If our elections in the United States were 100% honest, then Bush and Cheney would be impeached in 2007, but since the Republicans cheat like crazy who knows what will happen next November?
January 10th, 2006 at 9:37 pmThat’s what I mean, Jay Randal — a whole lot of good has to happen before we can even begin to make things right.
January 10th, 2006 at 10:02 pmWhat can we do now?
Comment by Marie — January 10, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
That’s always been the big question. Well, how about letters to the editors and local TV and radio stations for starters? Try to educate more people about the abuses going on behind their backs, on their asses, and in their names (supposedly.) [I'm not much of an "organizer" for these kinds of things, so I'm just winging it. I'm sure there are others who are better at this than me.]
Then I suppose some local level organizing has to be done. Perhaps some door-to-door on-the-step teaching of your neighbors (where it always has to start.)
And some pressure on our current batch of so-called “Representatives” wouldn’t hurt. Remind them of their constitutional oaths and that their Code of Conduct requires them to put aside party affiliation and examine the facts which include that this president has overstepped his authority too many times.
After that I’m like Ned Flanders’s beatnik parents (”We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.”)
Oh, and we really just need to change the House. They have the power to impeach the president and then the Senate will try him, and they have to do it. They can’t ignore the charges. And I believe that even if the Democratics don’t regain control of the Senate, I think they will at least pick up a few seats thus lowering the Republican majority. And there are some older senators who really don’t like the way this president is abusing executive authority. I think they would be more interested in restoring constitutional balance of power. I think they don’t like having the institution of the United States Senate ignored. In their minds, they’re US Senators, and you don’t treat US Senators the way this president has treated them. But without the House bringing charges (impeachment), they can do nothing on their own. Which is as it should be.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:25 amThat’s always been the big question. Well, how about letters to the editors and local TV and radio stations for starters? Try to educate more people about the abuses going on behind their backs, on their asses, and in their names (supposedly.) [I’m not much of an “organizer†for these kinds of things, so I’m just winging it. I’m sure there are others who are better at this than me.]
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider #34
Wayne and Marie,
That’s what the “loyal opposition” is for. We the progressives need to keep the pressure on the DNC and DLC, the Howard Deans, and Harry Reids to get infront of the television cameras and tell the truth. Everytime a democrat or opponent of the criminal Bushite junta gets face time on television or in the print media they ought to get unplugged. Watching some woman named Conif i believe it was against that scurvy right wing, cundt mona charon on C-Span the other day i got an ulcer. The conif woman was so polite and let Mona run all over her a*s.
Dems gotta get real (Katrina Vandenheuvel real)…
Let the people know just how infected this government is with gangrenous conservatism that’s eventually going to lead to amputation…
But, we have to e-mail/call the DNC, our congress persons and Senators demanding they get on the ball and stop being so freaking polite, and also they’ve got to get rid of our red state traitors!
January 11th, 2006 at 12:14 pmJohn McCain was recently able to get the pres to sign onto a defense auth that included anti-torture provisions that the pres was formerly opposed to.
Comment by Jerry #28
Sorry to burst your bubble Jerry but Bushiva (after that photo op with McCain) secretly inserted a caveat to that torture bill immunizing himself and his ’subordinates” from having to follow its mandates…
January 11th, 2006 at 12:17 pm“The editorial ignores the fact that members of Congress were not allowed to discuss the program, either with their staff or other members, much less the public.”
Nonsense. Any one of the members could have leaked. The real question is why they didn’t. I think you losers ought to write your congressmen and senators and ask them why they allowed the civil rights of terrorists and traitors to be so sorely abused.
January 13th, 2006 at 9:24 am