It’s days like this that make my geeky habit of reading Church Committee testimony worthwhile. All of you should read the Church Committee’s report on mail opening. It’s especially relevant today because the program was run by James Jesus Angleton and he is the subject of a movie currently in the theaters, The Good Shepherd. Yes, he was a quite an unsavory fellow.
It’s also relevant today because the New York Daily News is reporting that the President has asserted his authority to read our mail with a signing statement.
President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant, the Daily News has learned.
The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a “signing statement” that declared his right to open people’s mail under emergency conditions.
That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.
Bush’s move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.
I have developed a theory that Dick Cheney has made it a personal mission to eliminate every piece of legislation that was enacted post-Watergate to rein in the intelligence community. The Church Committee did a report on the NSA called The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights that led directly to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). FISA was the law the administration ignored when they decided to spy on domestic electronic communications without obtaining a warrant. The Church Committee also did a report called Mail Opening. It has never been legal to open the mail without a warrant. Below the fold I have excerpted some of James Angleton’s testimony about the CIA’s mail opening program. His testimony occurred, somewhat strangely, in a different Church Committee report, called Huston Plan.
The first segment here has Curtis R. Smothers, Counsel to the Minority (Republicans), questioning Angleton about why the CIA would open the people’s mail and who would authorize such an operation.
Mr. SMOTHERS. All right. With respect to the question then of mail opening, is it your experience that this kind of operation by the CIA
would have been discussed in interagency working group meetings among persons who would otherwise have been uninformed of such operations?Mr. ANGLETON. No, we would not raise such an operation.
Mr. SMOTHERS. In the normal course of things, would there have been an approval channel other than such interagency groups for securing
Presidential advice and consent to such operations?Mr. ANGLETON. I am not aware of any other channel.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Would such channels as the Special Group or the Intelligence Board have been a proper place for such matters to be raised?
Mr. ANGLETON. I do not believe that an operation of this sensitivity would have been raised in any body. It would have been-if there was going to be submission for Presidential approval, it would have been raised either by the Director of the FBI or the Director of Central Intelligence.
Mr. SMOTHERS. But in any event, it would not have been raised with this working group involved with the Huston plan?
Mr. ANGLETON. That is correct. That is correct.
Here is the Chairman, Senator Frank Church asking Angleton why the CIA would open people’s mail without any Presidential authority to do so. It should be kept in mind that the CIA might have actually had Presidential approval at one time (originating with Eisenhower) but their official story was that they did not. The CIA might have felt that if they ratted out prior Presidents no future Presidents would trust them. Or they might have been, as Senator Franck Church called them, acting like rogue elephants. In any case, here’s Angleton’s response.
The CHAIRMAN. But the CIA was the agency principally involved in the mail openings.
Mr. ANGLETON. That is correct for all foreign mail, not for domestic.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and we will explore the whole breadth of that program in due course. Did not the CIA have an affirmative duty to inform the President about such a program?
Mr. ANGLETON. I believe so, without any question.
The CHAIRMAN. But it apparently was not done. You did not inform the President. Director Helms did not inform the President?
Mr. ANGLETON. I would say, sir, not by way of any excuse, but those were very turbulent periods for the intelligence community and particularly for the FBI, and I think that all of us had enormous
respect for Mr. Hoover and understood the problems which he had in sustaining the reputation of the FBI.The CHAIRMAN. But the fact that the times were turbulent, the fact that illegal operations were being conducted by the very agencies we entrust to uphold and enforce the law makes it all the more incumbent that the President be informed of what is going on, does it not? It is really not an excuse.
Mr. ANGLETON. I do not think there was ever the forum in which these matters could be raised at that level. I think that has been one of the troubles in domestic counterintelligence and foreign counterintelligence that the issues never do get beyond the parochial circle of those engaged in that activity.
The CHAIRMAN. But you have said that there was an affirmative duty on the CIA to inform the President.
Mr. ANGLETON. I don’t dispute that.
The CHAIRMAN. And he was not informed, so that was a failure of duty to the Commander in Chief; is that correct?
Mr. ANOLETON. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think anyone would have hesitated to inform the President if he had at any moment asked for a review of intelligence operations.
The CHAIRMAN. That is what he did do. That is the very thing he asked Huston to do. That is the very reason that these agencies got together to make recommendations to him, and when they made their
recommendations, they misrepresented the facts.Mr. AXGLETON. I was referring, sir, to a much more restricted forum.
The CHAIRMAN. I am referring to the mail, and what I have said is solidly based upon the evidence. The President wanted to be informed. He wanted recommendations. He wanted to decide what
should be done, and he was misinformed. Not only was he misinformed, but when he reconsidered authorizing the opening of the mail 5 days later and revoked it, the CIA did not pay the slightest bit of attention to him, the Commander in Chief, as you say. Is that so?Mr. ANGLETON. I have no satisfactory answer for that.
The CHAIRMAN. You have no satisfactory answer?
Mr. ANGLETON. No, I do not.
I’ve always found this exchange both chilling and humorous. To really understand the context I’d have to write a diary about the Huston Plan, and Watergate, etc. But it is important to remember that, at the time of this testimony, Dick Cheney was the chief-of-staff to President Gerald Ford and Donald Rumsfeld was his Defense Secretary. And they did not like the Church Committee. They did not like the exposure of all the country’s dirty secrets. They didn’t like the resulting oversight and reforms. And when they came back into power in 2001, they set about rolling back all those reforms, piece by piece. Bush’s latest signing statement is a case in point.
“Despite the President’s statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people’s mail without a warrant,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.
Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
“The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.
“The danger is they’re reading Americans’ mail,” she said.
“You have to be concerned,” agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush’s claim. “It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we’ve ever known.”
A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised, “It’s something we’re going to look into.”
Yeah! Why don’t you look into that? That’d be real cool.
I can’t tell you how great it is to read a post like this, that pulls the past back into the present to better inform us. That was our goal at Probe magazine. Damn – if we still had that going I’d want you for a regular contributor!
I hope this is a sign you’re feeling better – I know how long it takes to type something like this. But this is what blogs are BEST for. Anyone can have an opinion. But opinion backed by hard historical data is far more informed.
NOW. I hope this post is also a wakeup call to those who would push for ABSENTEE BALLOTS. Now you know why I think that’s a lousy idea. If the CIA can “filch” mail (as stated in Osborne’s testimony) what’s to keep them from stealing a few ballots each from heavily Democratic areas to ensure a Republican victory?
Btw – if you read more of Angleton’s testimony, you’ll eventually come to the quote where he says it was “inconceivable” that a secret agency of the government should have to adhere to its overt laws.
Frank Church was right the first time (he later retracted this, after buckets of misleading info were dumped on him). The CIA IS a rogue elephant. The other agencies may well be too. How would we know, if their workings are kept secret?
And a big hat tip to Rex Bradford, who scanned in all these records and set up document libraries for three sites (the Assassination Archives Research Center linked above, which is always in need of contributions so please help; Rex’s own History Matters site, and the Mary Ferrell Foundation site.) I don’t know what the differences between them are – I seem to find whatever I need on whichever site I go to first.
.
WASHINGTON – White House legal counsel Harriet Miers has submitted her resignation. White House press secretary Tony Snow said the president reluctantly accepted her resignation, which takes effect Jan. 31. He said a search for a successor is under way.
Asked why she was leaving, Snow said: “Basically, she has been here six years.”
Bush nominated Miers for Supreme Court"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."As Allen Dulles used to teach first year CIA employees, “There are no coincidences.”
Speaking of “no coincidences,” I just opened a piece of unsolicited mail that included an “Impeach Bush” bumper sticker (which is why I didn’t call it junk mail) right before reading about the mail opening signing statement over at Raw Story.
It may be synchronicity, but that baby is going on the bumper today!
I suspect this will push a significant number of everyday folks over into the impeachment camp once word gets out. They may not have email or call overseas, but by God they understand someone opening their mail! Bush just put a big “Kick me, I’m channelling Nixon” sign on his back.
Maybe this signing statement is Cheney deciding to do his part to rid us of “George D’Arc?”
Lucky you! I just got some “Re-elect Gore 2008” bumper stickers in the mail yesterday. Woohoo!
That is one scary photo.
Given the events/disclosures of this past year, the timing is just plain odd. Even in the face of disclosures about the NSA, this administration is still seeking ways to “fight” the Snowglobal War on Terror. But why put it in writing? There can be little doubt that it was already happening, why give up deniability?
See the last sentence of my comment to Real History Lisa…
.
Kissinger – Negroponte – Powell – Rumsfeld – Cheney – Nixon – etc, etc
ANTI-WAR DEMONSTRATION, November 1969: Peace now, Peace now!
NARRATOR: Nixon and his aides, claiming that anti-war critics were helping the Communists, ordered illegal wire taps and drew up a list of their domestic “enemies”.
SONG PROTEST: “All we are saying is give peace a chance” — Are you listening Nixon? “All we are saying is give peace a chance” — Are you listening Agnew?”
MISSION BETRAYED: Richard Nixon and the
Scranton Commission Inquiry into Kent State
The President had quite a bit more to say – and was less concerned with the human implications of the bloodshed than with the political ramifications for his administration. The journal entry also betrays more than a hint that he hoped this show of force might help achieve a primary goal of his presidency: to crush the student antiwar movement that had driven his predecessor Lyndon Johnson from office.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."At what point does Congress decide to show some balls? How can any legislator sit back and watch while the executive branch usurps Congressional authority?
On a more realistic point, if the president can veto a law or ammend a law via the ‘signing statement,’ then Congress needs a mechanism to deal with these siging statements.
Part of this falls on us. We have to let our elected reps know that we have their back if they stand up (and their head if they don’t!)
Yes! A word for our times.
——-
There’s no Constitutional basis for a “signing statement” to be more than a comment, a statement of presidential intent. If the President rejects even one word of a bill, the only legal course of action is a veto.
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3:
…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…
Nothing about “if he shall choose to do so”.
This continues to be one of those news stories that MSM has consistently ignored over the years which keeps the general public in the dark as to how bush operates-more as dictator than US president. He makes a mockery of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
From a psych nurse perspective, if I were assessing the condition of a hospitalized patient who showed a parallel condition to Bushes, (which, imho, I strongly suspect is a severe narcissistic personality disorder: I truly think the man is a dangerous sociopath, now under severely escalating stress), I’d be yelling for a sharp increase in chemical restraints (big time medication)and separation from the general polulution, in case his controls collapse, especially if he is not really abstinent from alcohol or is abusing of other drugs. Clearly he is operating under some delusional belief that he is infallible and has every right to do as he pleases. I find this all literally terrifying to watch in a man who has the awesome amount of national/global power this one does.
.
WILLIAMSTOWN, MASS. (AP) – His horse is wild-eyed and muscular, a gallant force galloping toward a mountain top as soldiers in the background push a cannon alongside a rocky ledge.
It’s a collection of both stunning artwork and political propaganda. Take, for instance, “Bonaparte Crossing the Alps.” Despite its overwhelming majesty and the details David painted into the general and his stallion, the painter had a few things off.
Bonaparte led the armies of the Consulate over the Alps to defeat the Austrians at the Battle of Marengo (Jacques-Louis David)For one, the portrait doesn’t really look like Napoleon, and the general actually traversed the Alps on the back of a mule, not a fiery steed.
“He wasn’t trying to capture historical accuracy as much as he was concentrating on painting Napoleon as a conquering hero,” said Michael Cassin, the Clark’s curator of education.
White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Isn’t a jet fighter a “fiery steed”?
From the bill (H.R. 6407):
“`404 (c). . . No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.’.
Signing statements (all of them) are available @ the GPO Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, including this one:
“The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c). . .in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.“
I’d like to see a signing statement like this described as not an “assertion of new authority” but as a “declaration of criminal intent”.
I’d also like to see the term “usurpation”* return to regular use.
————
* “A wrongful seizure or exercise of authority or privilege belonging to another; an encroachment: “in our own day, gross usurpations upon the liberty of private life” (John Stuart Mill).”
An edited version is available in orange.
Booman this is a major and important post. Especially as it relates to past, present and future constitutional crimes. I hope you will post this in orange.
The Angleton testimony before the Church Committee is important. Angleton was an intelligent, slippery criminal.
Thank you for your hard work. It needs to reach a wider audience.