« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Source: McConnell's Account of Insurgent Wiretap Controversy 'Terrible'
A knowledgeable government source says the account Admiral Mike McConnell gave to the House intelligence committee about the procedure for wiretapping Iraqi insurgents earlier this year is "really terrible."
McConnell told the committee today that restrictions derived by the FISA Court this year on wiretapping foreign-to-foreign communications that pass through the U.S. prevented the NSA from surveilling Iraqi insurgents who had kidnapped U.S. soldiers for 12 hours. But the source, who is privvy to the timeline of the incident, says "internal bureaucratic wrangling," and not court-based restrictions, were responsible for the lag time. "To get an emergency warrant, you just have to believe the facts support the application that someone is an agent of a foreign power," the source says. "That takes approximately five seconds to establish if you're going after an Iraqi insurgent."
Why did so much time elapse before the surveillance? Top Justice Department officials needed to approve the emergency order. But according to the source, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was out of town; Deputy AG Paul McNulty had resigned already; Solicitor General Paul Clement "had left the building"; and the other responsible official, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein was not yet authorized to approve the emergency order. Wainstein testified today, but demurred from answering questions about the incident in open session.
Despite McConnell's testimony today and Tuesday that the FISA Court unreasonably tied the NSA's hands in the case, the source says, "it stems from their own internal process, and it stems from their own reading" of the court's ruling.
More on this tomorrow.
Comments (12)
Darth Cheney wrote on September 20, 2007 8:28 PM:BARACK, I AM YOUR FATHER!
steambomb wrote on September 20, 2007 8:48 PM:Is being full of shit a requisite to work for the Bush administration? Car salesmen should be lining up for government service across the nation.
po wrote on September 20, 2007 8:49 PM:So does anyone employed in the Executive Branch have to testify truthfully before Congress? This is getting somewhat ridiculous. And the Democrats want us to believe that these folks give the credible evidence to support the gutting of this or that civil right (yeah, those same ones we're suppose to be fighting them over there to preserve over here). And each GD time this or that administration flunky comes out and says, psych, I was only joking, but thanks you did the right thing.
When is enough, enough? When?
steambomb wrote on September 20, 2007 8:51 PM:But this is typical republican behavior. Go out and try the use the law in the wrongest way possible to try to set an agenda to either get rid of that pesky law you dont like or make it as weak as you possibly can. We have seen this before.
Hagop wrote on September 20, 2007 10:08 PM:Again, the general position here is "trust us." Everyone in the intelligence community REALLY wants to protect civil liberties. Well, maybe, but the issue is similar to the issue raised by the administrations claim that "we do not engage in torture." What is your definition? Probably different than mine and yours.
PPA has "already made the U.S. safer." But we cannot tell you any details. Secret.
Dee Illuminati wrote on September 20, 2007 10:18 PM:I was wondering why, seriously what was to be gained from these statements? I mean part of the credibility of 'trust me' is predicated on not stating obviously ridiculous and exagerated statements.
Really, it took 16 hours to fill out paperwork?
Sometimes you wonder why people do things, if this was to enhance the proposition that there was management that could be trusted, the manufacturing of scenarios and the JIT declasifications leave me wondering.
After hearing the testimony I have much more faith in Patreus as at least he could withstand questioning and not resort to outright fabrications of events.
It makes me really appreciate General Pace and Sec. DEF Gates as I get a reassurance that the returned look in their eyes is reality based.
questioneverything wrote on September 20, 2007 10:25 PM:Lying is the new black. It is their agenda as dictated by masterminds Grover Norquist and Karl Rove.
Yesterday 14 Republicon senators who are up for re-election in 2008 joined Lindsay Graham to not allow an up-or-down vote to restore Habeas Corpus rights to all. The Military Commissions Act II, forced through the congress before the 2006 election, denies the Great Writ to ANYONE DESIGNATED AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT BY THE PRESIDENT (or anyone he enlists to make the designation). That means ANYONE.
They included:
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Retiring Warner of VA and quitting Allard of CO also voted with Graham's filibuster.
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) (who won on the strength of one of the most despicable smear campaigns of triple amputee Max Cleland) did not vote.
56 senators voted to bring the bill to the floor (including 6 Republicans).
The MSM reports this as a Democratic loss. 56 is a solid majority, but not in Bush world. Not with these lying thieves.
Hector wrote on September 21, 2007 7:55 AM:And how many Democratic US Senators bravely voted to condemn the questioning of Petraeus's integrity? So what's to be done?
What?! wrote on September 21, 2007 8:23 AM:This "internal" process and faulty ruling sounds exactly like "the wall" the CIA and the FBI thought existed pre 9/11. Each had a faulty understanding of a process and thus the CIA wouldn't share nor the FBI hear anything from the CIA that dealt with foreign terrorist activities even if it might involve US interests.
They have learned nothing in the past six years!
What?! wrote on September 21, 2007 8:25 AM:This "internal" process and faulty ruling sounds exactly like "the wall" the CIA and the FBI thought existed pre 9/11. Each had a faulty understanding of a process and thus the CIA wouldn't share nor the FBI hear anything from the CIA that dealt with foreign terrorist activities even if it might involve US interests.
They have learned nothing in the past six years!
Dee Illuminati wrote on September 21, 2007 4:35 PM:I just don't get it, form fill a XFDL form with drop down reasons for a request, number, name: get a side-order of RSA wrapped mime-encoded text, and then add a garland of extraction and pre-population and print-out on FISA's printers.
This takes 16 hours?
Maybe to write the app.
Anonymous wrote on September 21, 2007 6:19 PM:This makes no sense.
if American lives were in jeopardy, why didn't someone pick up the phone to gonzo or clement for authorization?
Is this a selective leak BS story?
Ask your source if the kidnapping of the soldiers was active, and hence an emergency, or had been completed months (or years) earlier, and they were just trying to get authorization for a search on suspects long after the fact....
If this was an emergency, why not use the 72hour emergency rule and avoid FISA court for at least 72 hours.
sounds like admin is trying to make a case for bad FISA out of a BS story....