I have a hornet in my baseball cap over the farce that is being conducted this morning at the Capitol. I can’t believe they are refusing to put Abu Gonzalez under oath. He was the White House counsel for !Deity’s sake when all of this started!
Where’s Ashcroft? I asked that in the main-page thread. I did a cursory Google search for his history in this fiasco and found a couple of interesting nuggets. I apologize for the lack of commentary on the articles below, but I’m not going to pretend that I know what I’m talking about here, that would be akin to Bill Frist giving Terry Schiavo’s diagnosis based on a videotape.
I’ll leave it to the rest of you experts:
September 11, 2001 – the demise of our democracy is set into motion by the neocons.
September 18, 2001 – Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller hold a press conference regarding proposed wiretap bill
Under intelligence gathering, we want to provide additional tools to collect intelligence on terrorists, including expanded electronic surveillance, search authority and the ability to identify, cease and
forfeit terrorist assets.
Two specific changes we have proposed include: First, current law requires us to obtain a wiretap for a phone number. It does not allow us to obtain a wiretap authority for an individual. Well, with the advances in technology, we need to make sure that our laws are also advancing. We’re proposing that we provide wiretaps so that you can assign the wiretap to the individual,
so that we can gain intelligence from individuals who use multiple telephones and changing cellular phones that move around with individuals.
ASHCROFT: You understand that assigning the authority only to the hardware means that when a person changes hardware, we lose our capacity to surveil. And given the nature and availability of literally disposable telephones in modern society, we need to be able to have the court authority to monitor, not the phone, but the telephone communications of a person and to have that authority stay with the person.
Second, current law requires that we obtain a separate wiretap in each jurisdiction of the country where an investigation is being pursued. We would like to change the law so that one wiretap approval can be obtained for all jurisdictions working on an investigation, particularly given the mobility of individuals and the capacity of individuals who are mobile to communicate. This is a reasonable upgrade in our opportunity to help us curtail and combat the threat.
I want to assure you that in our effort to make sure that law enforcement can gain the intelligence that it needs in order to protect America, we are also mindful of our responsibility to protect the rights and privacy of Americans.
September 25, 2001 – The media is already reporting push-back from Congress, via CNN.com:
The worries were expressed as U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft urged lawmakers to quickly approve a legislative package that would broaden law enforcement surveillance powers and ease restrictions on the ability of U.S. authorities to detain or deport suspected alien terrorists. [snip]
The package outlined by Ashcroft would ease restrictions on wiretaps and search warrant requests. For example, the legislation would allow one court to authorize wiretaps for a number of different jurisdictions.
The measure would also allow federal investigators to seize suspected terrorists’ voice mail messages with a search warrant.
August 23, 2002 – AP reports that the FISA court struck some of the Administration’s assumed power due to widespread blunders
“How these misrepresentations occurred remains unexplained to the court,” the special court said.
The court’s orders, signed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, were disclosed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has raised questions about the Justice Department’s use of wiretap laws in espionage and terrorism cases. [snip]
But the surveillance court, which considers federal search and wiretap requests in secret under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, found that Ashcroft’s rules could allow misuse of information in criminal cases. Prosecutors in criminal cases must meet higher legal standards to win approval for searches or wiretaps.
“These procedures cannot be used by the government to amend the (surveillance) act in ways Congress has not,” the court wrote. In its rare public rebuke, it said the Justice Department spent “considerable effort” arguing its case, “but the court is not persuaded.”
November 18, 2002 – An appeals court reverses the FISA ruling, but there is still mention of warrants being needed – From CBS News:
Under old rules, the intelligence court could only grant wiretap warrants in cases where terrorism was the sole focus.
In the 56-page opinion overturning a May decision by the ultra-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the three-judge appeals panel said the expanded wiretap guidelines sought by Attorney General John Ashcroft under the new USA Patriot Act law do not violate the Constitution.
No wonder one the FISA court judges resigned in protest.
Mr. Ashcroft, you have some ‘splainin to do.
Here’s the link to a Google search for Ashcroft + wiretaps if you want to help with the hunting of information.
I never liked Ashcroft but not long ago I found some information that gave me a different perspective. I still don’t like him but the pre-9/11 and post 9/11 Ashcroft are like 2 different animals. For those who are digging, Lambert is one who that’s integral to several proceedings that give weight to theories that the WoT investigations in the 90s were manipulated. He goes way back…a Reagan appointee, I think, and he seemed to crack hard on Ashcroft for older policy violations..more pre-Ashcroft than anything. It seemed like these compliance proceedings were part of what blocked the investigations that might have prevented 9/11. Ashcroft was uninterested but seemed professional about FBI/DOJ until 9/11 and that transformed him into a zealot.
Here’s an article from 2002 but it has to be considered for more than what’s written in it. It could very well be that Lambert was setup, for whatever reason.
It’s impossible to tell who is on which side in most of these convoluted trails but the evidence of incidents is documented.
rumi did a diary on his appearance last month on Hardball. More than Abu Gonzales or Aschroft, this whistleblower will probably give us the most substantive amounts of information on their back-room tactics.
Here’s the link to Amy Goodman’s interview with Mr. Tice (via Alternet):
(I recommend reading the full transcript)
heavily sourced article, “Palace Revolt“
So the question is: did Ashcroft have serious misgivings about the program or not?
Thanks for the mention above.
I can’t remember all of the details but I can look some of this back up. You know what a huge tangled web they’ve made. I think Ashcroft had a different agenda pre 9/11 and also the pace and volume at which BushCo moves people around usually means something. FBI/DOJ failings and manipulations around the GWoT investigations prevailed through a few administrations. It honestly looks like there were several individual and a few larger agendas in play over the years, which I don’t find surprising. It’s realistic to consider the effect of politics in those depts.
Something happened though, with Larry Thompson, Ashcroft, Freeh and some others concerning Maher Arar and other renditions/combatants. It looks like the post 9/11 atmosphere allowed for the rounding up of loose participants in a decades old program of supporting, stinging, surveilling and manipulating the gwot operatives. It was also a good way of quieting anyone with more knowledge of the 9/11 events.
I can understand an agency playing a group for covert activities overseas, another agency following it but not knowing the true sponsor, informants playing both sides and outside groups exploiting all of this for their own benefit.
It’s like a rival or rogue criminal ripping off the buy money from an unauthorised or dirty sting/informant playing all sides for a fool. Who do the cops or criminals call when their drug money gets stolen?
Ashcroft seemed sincere post9/11 in some accounts….a zealot, but sincere. Like most of BushCo pawns, he may have been chosen with this reaction expected. By the time he was in the hospital either Comey had him where the laws again took precedent or JA may have had a crisis of conscience in a near death environment…or not.
Just a few thoughts.
There was one catch: the secret program had to be reapproved by the attorney general every 45 days. It was Goldsmith’s job to advise the A.G. on the legality of the program. In March 2004, John Ashcroft was in the hospital with a serious pancreatic condition. At Justice, Comey, Ashcroft’s No. 2, was acting as attorney general.
Here’s another interesting coincidence that happened in that time frame. This must have fallen down the memory hole.
of crap going without investigation due to the lack of subpoena power by the minority party. We need to get a majority in at least one branch of Congress to raise some hell.
Yeah and this last one ties back into specific questioning of Gonzales today. There were at least a few that asked specifically about using the surveillance for political intent, which this is.
Damn, wasn’t March 04 a hopping time with Gannon outed the last of Feb and HST’s possible suicide a few weeks after? Wasn’t Spring/Summer 04 also a run of CBS v Buckhead, swiftboaters, judge shootings ….
Great diary as always, Man Eegee, thanks for doing such thorough digging. I am still hoping that Ashcroft will ‘agree’to testify at the hearing, but I’m not terribly optimistic that will happen. At least with Tice and Wilkerson now willing to ‘sing,’ so to speak, maybe something substantive will actually come out of all this, even if they don’t testify, they help keep this in the public eye. I’m not holding my breath, because I look terrible in blue.
Hell, I’d love to hear Ashcroft’s perspective on the whole thing, given the in extremis arm twisting he had to endure from Abu Doody and Andy “house of cards.” Ashcroft can even ‘sing’ too, as long as it’s not Let the Eagle Fly !!
of Newsweek magazine gave a great interview yesterday. The link to the MSNBC audio feed is here. It runs around 10 minutes but he touches on the fact that Abu Gonzales wasn’t sworn in, and wasn’t exactly thrilled that Ashcroft or Comey would probably be called to testify.
Isikoff also speculates that if they are subpoenaed to the committee, George will pull out his Executive Privilege card and refuse their access.
We shall see…
It was good of you to pull this information together in this way. I’m about to go apoplectic every time I turn on political coverage of any kind. Keep fighting them, man. Keep fighting.
I know the limits of outrage are tested every day, but so must our resolve to fight these fascist bastards. You’re needed amigo!
Thanks. Sometimes I wonder. But a little encouragement from the likes of you doesn’t hurt.