|
A Cryptome DVD is offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for a DVD of the Cryptome 11.5-years archives of 43,000 files from June 1996 to January 2008 (~4.5 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. Archives include all files of cryptome.org, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org. Cryptome offers with the Cryptome DVD an INSCOM DVD of about 18,000 pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985. No additional contribution required -- $25 for both. The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. |
17 February 2008
Related:
http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/testimonies.htm
s2248.pdf + Senate Bill Greases Unwarranted Spying February 14, 2008 s2248-report.pdf + Senate Report Greases Unwarranted Spying February 14, 2008 hr3773.htm + House Bill Grits Unwarranted Spying February 14, 2008
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:40:13 -0500 Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Subject: GWB's Press Secretary explains why he needs to wiretap us To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > [This is from yesterday's Press Gaggle, with Scott Stanzel]: > > Q: Scott, where do you go from here on the surveillance thing? Is > the administration prepared to do any stopgap measures while > Congress is away? > > MR. STANZEL: Well, it's unfortunate, as you heard the President > talk about this morning, that the House is departing Washington for > 12 days off for Presidents Day. And it is important, I think -- as > you heard the President, it's important to note a few things. > > It's our view that leaders in Washington have no greater > responsibility than to protect the American people. But at this > time, this gap that we closed six months ago is going to reopen. > And as Director McConnell has said, the Protect America Act has > helped us obtain valuable insight on terrorist activities and it > has led to the disruption of terrorist attacks. And unfortunately, > tomorrow night that law will expire. So we will continue to work > with members of Congress about the importance. But the issue really > here is why is the House leadership, Democratic leadership, > blocking a bipartisan bill? > > Q: Are you going to reach out to the telecommunications companies > and ask them to keep helping you in this policy? > > MR. STANZEL: Well, those are conversations that are ongoing. And as > you would remember, prospective liability was passed in August, and > that gave liability protection to companies to assist going > forward. That prospective liability comes into question with the > expiration of the Protect America Act. > > So as you heard the leaders talk about, those companies are > increasingly reluctant to help their country and help us track the > activities of terrorists in foreign lands. It becomes more and more > difficult as time goes on to obtain their cooperation on these > issues, and that is of great concern. > > Yes, Helen? > > Q: What right does the President have to tell any company or any > person in this country to break the law? > > MR. STANZEL: I -- what's your point? > > Q: No warrants and so forth; that they can go and spy on us without > any warrants? > > MR. STANZEL: The Protect America Act was passed by Congress last > August, as you know, and signed into law. So it is a lawful program > that is expiring tomorrow night. > > Q: Well, if it's lawful, why would you not get a warrant? It still > prevails, doesn't it? > > MR. STANZEL: Because it's -- in 1978, as we talked about, during > that period, in 1978, the law, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance > Act, was passed, and that law was designed to help us gain > intelligence on foreign targets in foreign lands. What we're not > wanting to do here is to extend constitutional protections to > terrorists in foreign countries. > > So it's important that this law was modernized. It was modernized > in August. As we talked about then, that the law was significantly > outdated. You could have sat in that chair in 1978 and not had the > ability to make a phone call from a cell phone; today you can. > Today, you can send an e-mail from anywhere in the world via a > Blackberry. The law was outdated, so it > needed to be improved. It was improved. But Congress set a deadline > for it to expire so they could review it some more and that -- they > missed that deadline. We gave them a 15-day extension. > > The Senate used that time to pass a bipartisan bill that received > over two-thirds support from the United States Senate, has a > majority of support in the United States House. But the House > leadership, which seems to be beholden to class-action trial > attorneys in this matter, refused to let it come up for a vote. So > they are more interested in protecting the > interests of one of their constituencies than in protecting the > interests of Americans. > > Q: That's a terrible indictment for you to say. They want to obey > the law. > > MR. STANZEL: And we are obeying the law and it is important that > this law be improved and modernized. > > Jeremy. > > Q: All Americans should be wire-tapped? > > MR. STANZEL: Helen, your facts are not correct here. If a foreign > terrorist is calling to the United States, we want to know what > they're saying. > > Q: How do you know they're a foreign terrorist? > > MR. STANZEL: Because they're in foreign lands and we have to be > able to track foreign terrorists in foreign lands and what they're > doing. > > Q: Any foreigner -- > > MR. STANZEL: You may want to extend constitutional protections to > terrorists, but that is not something that we want to do. > > Q: You can't automatically call every foreigner a terrorist. > > MR. STANZEL: Jeremy? > > Q: Scott, two questions. One on this issue. The comment that you > just made about the House being "beholden" to class-action trial > attorneys -- Democrats have accused the White House of politicizing > this. With a comment like that, how do you respond that those kinds > of charges that this is just a political theater game? > > MR. STANZEL: Well, the Director of National Intelligence has > indicated on numerous occasions that, without retroactive immunity, > the private sector -- actually, this is from the committee report > from the Senate Intelligence Committee, I would refer you to that, > bipartisan, came out of the committee, 13 to two -- "Without > retroactive immunity, the private > sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government > requests in the future without unnecessary court involvement and > protracted litigation. The possible reduction in intelligence that > might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety > of our nation." > > That is what a broad bipartisan majority in the Senate Intelligence > Committee said about retroactive liability. That's important. The > President, as you remember in the debate in August said we need to > give the intelligence community the tools they need to protect this > country, and if they don't have those, then I will find it > unacceptable. > > In November, we told the House that their proposal and their > approach was unacceptable. So -- and that's a statement of > administration policy. We need these tools, we need that > retroactive liability. > > So why is it that House Democrat leadership is blocking the vote, > simple up or down vote on a bipartisan proposal that received > nearly 70 percent support in the United States Senate and would > receive bipartisan majority support in the House -- why is it that > they are blocking that? > > [SNIP] > > Q: I was kind of wondering where you go from here, back on the > Protect America Act. I mean, is there any room for negotiation at > all? I mean, if immunity is the issue, are there other things you > could do, like cap liability? Or is it just you have these two > intractable positions and how do you accomplish -- > > MR. STANZEL: Well, I think -- I think that, obviously it's our view > that the House should take up the bipartisan Senate-passed bill. > That would pass the House. That much is clear. So a majority in the > House of Representatives wants the Senate-passed bill to come up > for a vote and pass. So that's where we are. If that were to > happen, we could go about the > business of protecting Americans and put this issue behind us. > Unfortunately, the House Democrat leadership has not taken that > approach. > > So I haven't seen other ideas out there. It seems that the House is > committed to going on their 12-day recess over Presidents Day and > that is unfortunate. So certainly, if there are other ideas out > there, those are ones that we would take a look at. However, it > seems simple enough, the solution is well within grasp. > > Q: Just real quick. Why not have another -- I know you guys are > sick of these, but another 15-day -- I mean, if the threat is so > grave, isn't that better -- > MR. STANEL: Simply passing -- Congress -- you must remember that > Congress set its own deadline. They set a six-month deadline to > review these issues. We felt that that was plenty long enough, and > the fact that it was going to expire is not something that we > supported in the first place. The terrorist threat is not going to > expire. > > So they asked for a 15-day extension to again review these things. > But I think as you heard, I think it was Mr. Boehner talk about, it > calls into question their desire to really address these issues in > a full way if we are doing extension after extension after > extension, and that is no way for the intelligence community to go > about its planning. And it causes > greater concern, I think, to our ability to work with the private > sector to make sure that we're able to track what terrorists are > planning overseas. > > Q: But why isn't a temporary extension still better than nothing? I > mean, I understand why you want to get the retroactive immunity and > why you think that's important. But if the leadership isn't > offering that, why wouldn't another temporary extension be better > than nothing? > > MR. STANZEL: I would put it another way: What is it that they need > more time for? The solution is there. The solution is before them. > But they are blocking the solution. Why are they blocking the > solution? For partisan reasons. They are blocking that because they > are beholden to class-action trial attorneys. > > Q: But given that they seem to be intractable right now, wouldn't > you still prefer to let the law keep going for a while, than to > have it expire? > > MR. STANZEL: Well, an extension was rejected by a majority in the > House of Representatives. > > Q: Right, and I'm asking why, given that they're allowing that to > happen, it seems to me to call into question some of these > statements that now there are going to be gaps -- dangerous gaps in > intelligence-gathering. > MR. STANZEL: There will be. > > Q: Well, I'm saying, if you believe that, wouldn't you rather have -- > > MR. STANZEL: Well, it's up to House leaders to figure out how we > should protect our country. The solution is there before them. So > the majority in the House supports the solution before them. So all > it has to have is an up or down vote; simple as that. > > Q: What do you say to Nancy Pelosi, though, who -- she accused the > President yesterday -- I know you heard this -- of fear-mongering. > She said, obviously you can still pursue the targets that are > covered by the current law; right now you can still pursue any > investigation that has already been initiated. And then new ones, > all you'd have to do is get a > warrant. > > MR. STANZEL: Right, but the warrant process is the exact process > that was problematic. In 1978, the law wasn't designed to have > warrants on foreign targets -- plain and simple. And how fast the > FISA Court acts is not the issue; it's how long it takes to put > together a very lengthy application leading up to the FISA Court > acting. So that's problematic. And so how > would we respond? We are very concerned about the safety of > Americans. We all should be concerned about the safety of > Americans. That is why the Senate took the action that it did, in a > broad bipartisan way, to pass the Protect America Act. The House > should do the same. > > Q: You can get a warrant after the fact. > > Q: How much serious consideration did the President give to > delaying his trip to Africa? I mean, he mentioned that yesterday > and then he decided to go ahead and go anyway. Was it an idle threat? > > MR. STANZEL: No, that was an offer. I wouldn't call it a threat at > all. It was an offer to stay here -- if the House wanted to stay > here and work on these issues, and if he could be of assistance to > them to get this work done, he was willing to delay his trip. > > Q: But he knew at that time that the House had already decided to > adjourn. > > MR. STANZEL: Well, I don't know that their decision was made final. > But certainly, he wouldn't have said it if he wasn't prepared to > delay his trip. > > Q: And why is he going -- is it simply -- > > MR. STANZEL: Because the House has made it clear that they don't > intend to act. > > [SNIP] > > Q: I'm just still not clear on the question about the -- why the > administration decided that, hey, we're not going to do an extension. > > MR. STANZEL: I would take -- the question is premises on the fact > that an extension was available. An extension is not. A majority in > the House of Representatives rejected that approach. > > Q: But that's based on -- > > Q: -- said he would veto -- > > MR. STANZEL: They've known since November -- they've known since > November that our approach has been very clear, that -- > > Q: But if the President is serious about protecting the United > States, which is the point that he has made in now three statements > in three days about this, that if this is so vital and that the > process is so cumbersome to get the kind of warrants you need > through the previous process, before PAA, then why not tell the > Republicans on the Hill, his party, that, > okay, you know what, we need an extension, to continue doing it the > way that he wants -- > MR. STANZEL: Democrats are in control of the House of > Representatives. If they're serious they will bring up the > bipartisan Senate-passed bill for an up or down vote. Simple as that. > > Q: Can you speak to what actually happens now logistically, when > the legislation expires, what's the process? Are the wiretaps going > to stop? Are you going to start pursuing the warrants? What's going > to happen? > MR. STANZEL: Well, those may be questions that are best addressed > to the intelligence community. But certainly the tools that we have > will be weakened. As Kathleen mentioned, some of the efforts that > are currently underway have an opportunity to continue; new efforts > would have to go through the old process. So -- but further, what > concerns us the most is > the ability to compel the assistance of private companies to > continue to assist with this effort. If we don't have the help of > these private companies, we don't have a program, plain and simple. > > So that -- with each step and each time this issue seems to falter > in Congress, the companies become increasingly reluctant, out of a > responsibility as I think the leaders mentioned, to their > shareholders, to figure out if they want to be subject to these > billion-dollar class-action lawsuits. And that is not something > that is good for the companies, it's not something that's good for > the security of the American people. > > All right, thank you. [END} ********************************************************************** For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request@listserv.aol.com **********************************************************************