« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Expert: McConnell Claim "Totally Implausible"
Yesterday, the director of national intelligence, Admiral Michael McConnell, casually informed the House Judiciary Committee that the FISA Court had gotten so restrictive that its rulings required the NSA to obtain warrants before spying on Iraqi insurgents that had kidnapped U.S. troops.
That sounded dubious to us. Would the FISA Court have really issued such a patently absurd ruling? And it turns out we're not the only ones. FISA expert Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies also finds McConnell's statement dubious.
"It's totally implausible, like the claim about the arrests in Germany. Doesn't NSA have collection capabilities in Iraq? If so, they are totally outside FISA," Martin says. "Even if they're taking the Iraqi insurgent calls off the wire in the U.S. talking to each other, they don't need a court order and no court is going to bar them. Or is it that the NSA is so incompetent that it doesn't know they are Iraqi insurgents talking to each other and they were just blindly searching all traffic, which the court said they weren't allowed to do?"
We asked Ross Feinstein, McConnell's spokesman, to elaborate on his testimony. Feinstein declined, but indicated that McConnell stands by it.
Martin finds another problem with McConnell's testimony: it represents "selective disclosure of classified information to make a political point, in a way that can only be calculated to mislead, rather than inform."
Yesterday, McConnell asserted that President Bush had delegated him the authority to declassify information as he sees fit, thereby protecting himself from charges that he improperly disclosed information to the El Paso Times last month about the Bush administration's surveillance programs. Martin thinks that McConnell has disclosed that the NSA was surveilling the Iraqi insurgency, something she thinks should have remained classified. But now that the cat's out of the bag, she says, "they need to release the court opinions and legal arguments by DOJ" about the court's alleged rulings compelling the warrant on the insurgents.
Comments (12)
M M wrote on September 19, 2007 4:17 PM:They certainly can't argue that the rulings about Iraqi surveilance would reveal a state secret.
Speaking of those rulings, what's the status of the FISA court deciding whether to make public the other rulings from earlier this year? When will the court decide the issue?
Jonathan wrote on September 19, 2007 4:23 PM:Obviously, claims such as McConnell's illustrate why the secrecy embodied in the FISA statute -- and the court that oversees it -- are deeply troubling. How can Congress legislate meaningfully concerning matters about which most of its members, the public that they represent, cannot meaningfuly be informed.
Congress is forced, if it accepts that it may not know the details about which McConnell is testifying, to legislate in the dark.
May as well play pin the tail on the donkey and try to write laws like that.
Jonathan wrote on September 19, 2007 4:24 PM:Obviously, claims such as McConnell's illustrate why the secrecy embodied in the FISA statute -- and the court that oversees it -- are deeply troubling. How can Congress legislate meaningfully concerning matters about which most of its members, the public that they represent, cannot meaningfuly be informed.
Congress is forced, if it accepts that it may not know the details about which McConnell is testifying, to legislate in the dark.
May as well play pin the tail on the donkey and try to write laws like that.
steve-o wrote on September 19, 2007 4:24 PM:If the Democrats keep taking these "fine and honorable gentlemen" at their word, then I plan to try to sell them a bridge. The neo-cons are right.......these Democrats are just spineless and only concered about their own asses! VOTE EVERY INCUMBENT OUT!!!!! Start fresh............
Long Memory wrote on September 19, 2007 4:38 PM:I predict that Mr. McConnell is going to slink back in sometime in the next few days and revise his remarks so he doesn't face a perjury inquiry.
snoey wrote on September 19, 2007 4:57 PM:I'm not a expert, but everything I've read says that declassification is a process with signoffs and notifications to affected parties, not just something you can accomplish by running your mouth when the mood strikes.
drational wrote on September 19, 2007 5:47 PM:"Or is it that the NSA is so incompetent that it doesn't know they are Iraqi insurgents talking to each other and they were just blindly searching all traffic, which the court said they weren't allowed to do?"
I think this is obvious at this point. They have no clue who they are monitoring, because they are acquiring every communication, everywhere. They blindly mine the entirety of communications for intelligence-determined keywords. When a keyword sequence pops out, then they figure out who was doing the talking.
They can hit on a domestic-domestic conversation just as easily as a foreign one (though they are probably searching arabic, so the proportion of foreign-foreign hits is probably vastly greater than domestic-domestic.)
Yesterday, they went to great lengths to characterize the definition of "surveillance" as traditional wiretapping. But FISA update 105b talks only about "acquisition" that "concerns" foreign intelligence, specifically not surveillance.
This is akin to the TSP definition charade Gonzales played.
They are "acquiring" everything; when they get a hit, they figure out if foreign or domestic. if it is foreign then they can wiretap with abandon. If it is domestic, they go (now, and probably since January 2007) get a warrant. but this is done after the broad "search and seizure" in the form of blindly datamining the "acquisition" is completed. FISA Update simply legalizes the acquisition so they have no trouble telling a judge their "reason to believe" was based on a (now) legal method.
The clear thing is that they were doing this since 9/11. The illegal search and seizure problem troubled goldsmith and comey, and then of course the FISA court this january when they tried to get warrants for traditional wiretaps based on the datamining of acquisitions.
Now its all legal. Next step to cover their asses for the illegal business before 1/07.
pointus wrote on September 19, 2007 6:26 PM:McConnell has lost all credibility.
Cinderella Ferret wrote on September 19, 2007 8:01 PM:If he was in a Democratic admin, congress would have him up on perjury charges by now in response to his remarks about the German suspects.
NEWSFLASH: Bush appointee lies to Congress!
Drip, drip, drip. Anyone know a good plumber? Speaking of G. Gordon......
ROBinDALLAS wrote on September 19, 2007 9:18 PM:Another Republican in a critical position in government chooses to lie about a critical subject at a critical time. It has become a cliche'. On Gonzales and Rove, don't let them off the hook? They should answer for their crimes even though they have resigned their positions. Smok'em out, and bring 'em to justice!
ROBinDALLAS
ROBinDALLAS wrote on September 19, 2007 9:21 PM:Another Republican in a critical position in government chooses to lie about a critical subject at a critical time. It has become a cliche'. On Gonzales and Rove, don't let them off the hook? They should answer for their crimes even though they have resigned their positions. Smok'em out, and bring 'em to justice!
ROBinDALLAS
Utopia wrote on September 19, 2007 11:15 PM:So, if Bush did delegate authority to McConnell to declassify information, there should be a written record, no? Who's going to ask to see it? I sure hope Congress figures out this scam.
U