The President's Week From Hell

The President on his Ranch in Texas

A lot has hapened this week, and I felt that it would be good to have an open thread on the hot button issue that has arisen.

We take our lead from Jim Lehrer's interview with The President yesterday. Click into the link, and listen to the interview whilst at the same time you can go back to the tab where you have ATB open, so as either to comment, or at least to have a better visual than the grey screen provided. You will still hear the audio. For those of you who prefer to read, The Transcript.

Further reading:

'Bush authorized spying multiple times' MSNBC

'NSA Snoops And PATRIOT Acts = 4 Years Of No Attacks?' Ed Morrissey's great article not to be missed:

"....In those terms, with my wife, son, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter still alive along with the 300 million Americans that Islamofascists have wanted to kill in massive numbers for the past four years and more, I'd say we have struck the right balance between security and liberty for these circumstances. Those who want to strip us of all defenses out of an overstretched notion of the Fourth Amendment should remember that without security, civil liberties do not exist at all."

Hugh Hewitt who agrees with Ed and Glenn Reynolds @ Instapundit who is not so sure.

THE PRESIDENT'S VERY TOUGH RADIO ADDRESS THIS MORNING  DELIVERED LIVE NOT TAPED AS IS THE USUAL PRACTICE. THE AUDIO IS HERE:

  "In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

    This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

    As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.

    The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

    The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.

  The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

  This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States."

'Let's Send These Guys to Jail' John Hinderaker @ Powerline

Chicken Littles on The Loose Michelle Malikn's very long and thoroughly researched article on the National Security issue and The Administration, quite rightly pointing out:

"The Bush administration's response, based on the Times article, hinges on the volume of intelligence gathered and speed with which it needs to be acted upon. The cellphone numbers and e-mail addresses obtained after the Zubaydah capture, for example, were probably rendered useless within hours--presumably not enough time to seek and win warrant approvals from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court. It will be interesting to see how the administration responds further on this point."

In case anyone thinks it's different in the generally left leaning E.U. and ISPs aghast with the passing of the E.U. data directive.

Roger Simon tells it how it is:

"If there is any kernel of truth in this "shocking" revelation it is that Bush - after 9/11 - reminded (or endorsed) the NSA to do what he and every other President knew they were already doing. In other words, he was just trying to make sure someone was listening in when the next Mohammed Atta called home. Wouldn't you? (Well, it's not pretty, but I would wager most of us would in the President's position - no matter what our political party.)"

BloggingheadsTV an audio with bloggers Mickey Kaus and Robert Wright discussing current issues, (click on entire dialogue) a brilliant find fron NZ Bear

'Renewal of The Patriot Act is Blocked in The Senate' The WaPo

New Hampshire Republican Senator John Sununu is involved. The NRO

'Feingold Beats Bush In Patriot Act Fight' from John Nichols @ The Nation for my Dem readers, and also Josh Marshall on why non-lawyers should never present their legal conclusions and the analysis that supports them:

"According to the original Times article and subsequent reports, the president's authority to override statute law comes from the 2001 congressional resolution authorizing the force to destroy al Qaida.

By that reasoning the president must also be empowered to override the new law banning the use of torture, thus making the McCain Amendment truly a meaningless piece of paper."

CAIR (Council of Islamic Relations) Launches 'Patriot Act Blog

Sigmund Carl & Alfred points us to this.

Something to make you laugh, from the WaPo today:

"The New York Times' revelation yesterday that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic eavesdropping raised eyebrows in political and media circles, for both its stunning disclosures and the circumstances of its publication.

In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."

The Times said it agreed to remove information that administration officials said could be "useful" to terrorists and delayed publication for a year "to conduct additional reporting."

The paper offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story. The book will be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster."

AHEM.

So now, according to the reports The NYT held onto this story for 12 months. They spoke about it to The White House at the time and it was decided not to publish it in the interest of National Security. They were aware that both Houses were regularly updated on this, as well as The Justice Department and The Attorney General.

So why publish now?

Two reasons plausible, and I for one think it's a combination of both. When you have the timing and the reasons just right, as well as both parties with an agenda that matches, you have a winning combination of meeting of minds:

1) They have been in miserable shape as a newspaper. In coming out against the war in Iraq and The Patriot Act, whilst one is possibly being a success, although that is still undecided, the other stands to be thwarted by the success of the elections in Iraq.
Hence, they do have to do something to salvage their position whilst seemingly appear the staunch democrats, and promote the liberty and freedom mantra.

2) The Author of the piece in question James Risen, has a book coming out called "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration". The book is to be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster."

So now the NYT publisher and the Author of the piece both have a pressing reason to publish the story NOW. As usual any consideration for the nation's security, well being, or for that matter ongoing investigations, are non existent.

Business is business, and people's lives are, well, their own business....

The reasons are always in the name of democracy, but in the end for the selfish benefit of the individual and not the nation as a whole.

What The President had to say: "....assign a Justice Department prosecutor to begin investigating these leaks and prosecuting all those responsible for them or stand accused of silently aiding and abetting the enemy."

This statement by the NYT Editor Bill Keller speaks for itself:

"In the ensuing months, Keller wrote, two things changed the paper's thinking. The paper developed a fuller picture of misgivings about the program by some in the government. And the paper satisfied itself through more reporting that it could write the story without exposing "any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."

God help us if there is some kind of terrorist attack when we are not protected by the Patriot Act. For the naysaying senators to allow The Patriot Act to expire is to play with fire. It is to take the chance that terrorists will not act in that interim, in that period where the act falls and we're relegated to using the authorities that we had before September 11th.

That's taking the white flag analogy simply too far!

I hate to say this, but are you waiting for another disaster to strike, just so that you can stop repeating how "nothing has happened in the last four years"? I suggest you thank God first and our President second for that, and not your pet Islamofascists for lack of trying.

You'll find the list of attempts below.

UPDATE: Rudolph Giuliani's op-ed in The New York Times, "how quickly we forget" springs immediately to mind.

UPDATE: California Conservative has a list of all the attacks similar to 9/11, The Patriot Act has prevented. Well worth a look for all those who believe that we have had a peaceful 4 years.

UPDATE: From Sigmund Carl & Alfred 'Wiretap Outrage? Laughable Hypocrisy!', where he slamdunks the hypocrisy of the left, and reminds them of something they had clearly chosen to forget.

UPDATE: From Seneca The Younger @ YARGB:

"Bush is saying —

1. This is important.  These are not communications internal to the US.
2. It's based on other intelligence, establishing that the person involved is connected to a terrorist network. I'm not a lawyer (and that caveat should be read in all of this) but it appears to me that 50 USC 1801 (b)(2)(C) defines anyone who is believed to be part of a terrorist network is an "agent of a foreign power" under the act, and not a "US person".
3. He's explicitly saying this revealed "sources and methods"...
4. ... and that the sources and methods are the ones that the 9/11 Commission criticized the intelligence community for not having.
5. It was legal and within Bush's power.
6. This was done and reviewed periodically every 45 days.50 USC 1802 says:
    

   (a)
     (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year....

7. This defines them as "terrorists" under 50 USC 1801(c).
8. It was reviewed by the government's lawyers.
9. Congress was notified as required under 50 USC 1808.
10. "Minimization" procedures required under 50 USC 1801(h) were in place and performed.

I don't think any claim that this was "illegal" will stand up to scrutiny.

It looks to me like this is a sign that the Bush administration has (finally?) decided to act. I think this is the opening shot of a "pushback" that may well involve criminal prosecution of both reporters and members of the intelligence community, and very possibly a Tom-Clancy-esque revelation of leaks from within the Senate.

It's going to be very very interesting indeed."

VIA PERSONAL EMAIL JUST RECEIVED FROM A  FRIEND, AND LIBERAL BLOGGER GLENN GREENWALD WHOSE OPINION I VALUE:

"There is no question that the President ordered the NSA to conduct surveillance of terrorist suspects (including U.S. citizens) in violation of the law.  That law, FISA, prohibits such surveillance without a judicial warrant (except in cases of emergency, where they can eavesdrop up to 72 hours), but Bush instructed the NSA to conduct this surveillance without the required warrants.  In other words, he instructed them to conduct surveillence in violation of the law.

It is quite unclear what they told Congressional leaders about this -- the Administration claims, for instance, that they told then-Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham about it but he denies it.  My guess is that they did tell Congressional Democratic leaders something about it, maybe even a lot, but those Democrats kept quiet about it because they were too intimidated by 9/11-related concerns to speak out (or perhaps they didn't realize it was illegal).

That doesn't excuse those Democrats.  They ought to have spoken out then.  But just because the Administration may have told Nancy Pelosi about what they were doing doesn't make it any less illegal.  We are a nation of laws, not men, and everyone - even the President - is required to abide by it."

Fox News: "The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.
[...]
....since October 2001, the program has been renewed more than three dozen times. Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorizations. "

UPDATED THROUGHOUT THE WEEKEND

Linked: Jeff Goldstein @ Protein Wisdom, Mark Noonan @ Blogs For Bush, Doug @ Below The Beltway, Ace of Spades, LA Shawn Barber, Wizbang Jay @ Stop The ACLU, James Joyner at Outside the Beltway,  Professor Bainbridge Huan @ NeoModernism, Bill Faith @ Small Town Veteran, Confederate Yankee, Decision '08  Scott Ott @ Scrappleface, , Unpartisan has a round up of the reaction from the left, and my good friend Glenn Greenwald has a very persuasively argued liberal point of view. Enter the comments at your own peril.  Also another great friend from the liberal blogosphere, Joe @ The Heretik...And this from The Right Nation our European Blog.

Comments

[jess1dering]

Alexandra, RE: my third "comment" above. It was primarily for the benefit of one Joseph Marshall. He, however, is not interested. He thinks that the length of the post in question is excessive. He also thinks that the content is inappropriate. Please oblige him and delete comment. Thanks so much.

[Kenny Pierce]

Joseph,

The President is not above the law in the sense of being above the Constitution, but there are spheres of authority in which the Constitution grants power to the executive branch, not to Congress, and any law that Congress chooses to pass that infringes upon the power of the executive branch, is a law by the passage of which Congress, not the President, attempts to place itself above the law.

The Constitution grants to Congress all power to create laws; the President cannot on his own create legislation that must be followed by all citizens. However, Congress equally cannot infringe upon executive privilege, even if it does so by going through the motions of passing a law. The lawmaking power of Congress is exclusive, but not absolute; it is possible for Congress to pass a law that unconstitutionally restricts the President's authority, and when Congress does so the President is not obliged to follow that law.

But I'm not really interested in all that and have no interest in arguing it further if you remain convinced that I'm an ignorant moron; better men than you have thought so and been correct in their evaluation. Furthermore, that's not the point of my earlier comment, which point you have missed entirely. I have little interest in this particular political issue and wasn't moved to comment by the issue itself. What struck me, and what I tried to point out, was that you were investing a lot of effort in arguing your case, but with no apparent understanding of how to argue persuasively. Your style of argument is the sort of approach that tends to leave those who use it convinced of how stupid other people are, because the other people decline to be convinced. In my experience the unpersuasive person rarely says, "Hmm, I am failing to persuade; I wonder what I could do to improve my skills and become more persuasive?" Instead, the unpersuasive person says, "All those people I failed to persuade, are stubborn jackasses."

And I know that you've missed my point, because you commit exactly the same sort of error in this last comment that you did in the first one.

In selecting your quotations from case law, you see, you need to remember what it is you are trying to prove, in order to avoid the irrelevance of a petitio principii; and knowing what it is you're trying to prove involves knowing what it is that you and your opponents actually disagree about. In your quotation from Youngstown Co. vs. Sawyer, for example, the second sentence says, "But our history and tradition rebel at the thought that the grant of military power carries with it authority over civilian affairs." If you have not yet grasped that the whole point of disagreement is precisely over whether the wiretapping in question is or is not a matter of "civilian affairs" as opposed to military operations, then you haven't yet understood what the whole argument is about in the first place, in which case the more you argue the more you'll make it clear that you don't understand your opponents' whole case, and the more you will tempt them to hold you in contempt. But if you do understand that this civilian/military distinction is precisely the question to hand, then surely it's blindingly obvious that the Youngstown quote would become relevant only if you had already proved your case -- in which case it would be superfluous. It's a bad idea to include superflous and question-begging arguments because it generally convinces your opponents that you don't even understand what the argument's about, and therefore that you're stupid; and people generally decline to be persuaded by somebody they think is a moron who won't listen to them 'cause he's too busy carrying on about his own opinions. That is what I'm trying to point out to you.

I'm trying to stay out of political arguments during Advent, and so I'm not going to get drawn into this political one any further. My point was not to establish a position on the lawfulness of the President's actions; frankly, I don't have one because it involves lots of case-specific detail that I'm not interested in researching. My point was that you argue like a man who is too much in love with his own opinion to have spared any energy to understand his opponents' arguments, and that's no way to change your opponents' minds. There's simply no way that a man who understands the Republicans' core factual assertions, would be trying to convince Republicans that they were wrong by means of the Youngstown quote, because the Youngstown quote blatantly begs the factual question under debate.

What I'm trying to say, Joe, is that you never convince people to agree with you by telling them what you believe. That's the way most people go about arguing; they say, "Here's what I think..." because what's important to them is precisely what they themselves think. But what's important to somebody you're trying to persuade isn't what you think; it's what he thinks. Unless he has a very great deal of respect for you indeed, he doesn't give a damn what you think. You always have to remember Ambrose Bierce's definition of an egotist, which definition applies to most human beings; as Bierce puts it, an egotist is "a person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me." The more you talk about what you think -- especially when in so doing you inadvertently make it clear that you don't understand what the other guy thinks -- the more you communicate disrespect for his opinion and the less willing he becomes to be convinced.

Instead, you convince people by showing them what it is that they themselves have believed all along without realizing it. And in order to do that, you have to actually understand their beliefs, even better than they do...and in order to do that, you have to listen with full attention to their arguments...and if you're doing that, then you won't be using question-begging rhetoric every time you're turning around. Which rhetoric you, alas, habitually use.

I don't mind if you get every person on this website to agree with you that the President broke a law that he was Constitutionally bound to obey; for all I know that's true. I'm just telling you that you won't convince anybody until you improve your argumentation; and that what's lacking in your argumentation isn't logic or research nearly so much as it is relevance; and that the reason you're having trouble with relevance is that you aren't listening carefully enough to the other side.

And all of that is unsolicited advice, which I'm usually sensible enough not to give, as unsolicited advice is generally responded to by breach rather than by observance...so argue on to your heart's content in any manner you choose, with no further fear of criticism (constructive or otherwise) from myself.

[Joseph Marshall]

Well, Alexandra, I, at least, think I've abused your bandwidth enough on this one. And I'm sure you don't want to turn your blog into a reference book on the Supreme Court and all the intelligence gathering agencies, and I wouldn't dream [as some others] of forcing you to do so.

We'll have this all out in November of 2006. Beyond the "legal powers" issue is something far more fundamental: what this country will become.

There is no particular reason why, with the cooperation of enoungh citizens, the United States cannot be transformed into a Garrison State, like Israel, with institutions that are democratic in form but authoritarian in conduct. In November of 2006 we will see if that is going to happen.

But if my good friends here cannot see that what has happened with this issue is part of a radical transformation of this country in that direction, they are fools.

And I would post a warning to you all. There is absolutely no reason why an Authoritarian Democracy cannot work to the great advantage of other political and social views than yours. Give careful consideration to the powers you wish to grant to George W. Bush in the hands of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno. Or even Hillary Clinton.

Nothing lasts forever. Not even a Republican political majority in government.

[jess1dering]

ESPECIALLY for the consideration of Joseph Marshall. Joseph, would enjoy your feedback.What is with the Democrats and the New York Times, anyhow ??

Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration
Federal Register

Executive Order 12333--United States intelligence activities
Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12333 of Dec. 4, 1981, appear at 46 FR 59941, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 200, unless otherwise noted.
Table of Contents
Preamble

Part 1. Goals, Direction, Duties, and Responsibilities With Respect to the National Intelligence Effort
1.1 Goals
1.2 The National Security Council
1.3 National Foreign Intelligence Advisory Groups
1.4 The Intelligence Community
1.5 Director of Central Intelligence
1.6 Duties and Responsibilities of the Heads of Executive Branch Departments and Agencies
1.7 Senior Officials of the Intelligence Community
1.8 The Central Intelligence Agency
1.9 The Department of State
1.10 The Department of the Treasury
1.11 The Department of Defense
1.12 Intelligence Components Utilized by the Secretary of Defense
1.13 The Department of Energy
1.14 The Federal Bureau of Investigation
Part 2. Conduct of Intelligence Activities
2.1 Need
2.2 Purpose
2.3 Collection of Information
2.4 Collection Techniques
2.5 Attorney General Approval
2.6 Assistance to Law Enforcement Authorities
2.7 Contracting
2.8 Consistency With Other Laws
2.9 Undisclosed Participation in Organizations Within the United States
2.10 Human Experimentation
2.11 Prohibition on Assassination
2.12 Indirect Participation
Part 3. General Provisions
3.1 Congressional Oversight
3.2 Implementation
3.3 Procedures
3.4 Definitions
3.5 Purpose and Effect
3.6 Revocation

Timely and accurate information about the activities, capabilities, plans, and intentions of foreign powers, organizations, and persons and their agents, is essential to the national security of the United States. All reasonable and lawful means must be used to ensure that the United States will receive the best intelligence available. For that purpose, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, including the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, and as President of the United States of America, in order to provide for the effective conduct of United States intelligence activities and the protection of constitutional rights, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Part 1
Goals, Direction, Duties and Responsibilities With Respect to the National Intelligence Effort
1.1 Goals. The United States intelligence effort shall provide the President and the National Security Council with the necessary information on which to base decisions concerning the conduct and development of foreign, defense and economic policy, and the protection of United States national interests from foreign security threats. All departments and agencies shall cooperate fully to fulfill this goal.
(a) Maximum emphasis should be given to fostering analytical competition among appropriate elements of the Intelligence Community.
(b) All means, consistent with applicable United States law and this Order, and with full consideration of the rights of United States persons, shall be used to develop intelligence information for the President and the National Security Council. A balanced approach between technical collection efforts and other means should be maintained and encouraged.
(c) Special emphasis should be given to detecting and countering espionage and other threats and activities directed by foreign intelligence services against the United States Government, or United States corporations, establishments, or persons.
(d) To the greatest extent possible consistent with applicable United States law and this Order, and with full consideration of the rights of United States persons, all agencies and departments should seek to ensure full and free exchange of information in order to derive maximum benefit from the United States intelligence effort.
1.2 The National Security Council.
(a) Purpose. The National Security Council (NSC) was established by the National Security Act of 1947 to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign and military policies relating to the national security. The NSC shall act as the highest Executive Branch entity that provides review of, guidance for and direction to the conduct of all national foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and special activities, and attendant policies and programs.
(b) Committees. The NSC shall establish such committees as may be necessary to carry out its functions and responsibilities under this Order. The NSC, or a committee established by it, shall consider and submit to the President a policy recommendation, including all dissents, on each special activity and shall review proposals for other sensitive intelligence operations.

1.3 National Foreign Intelligence Advisory Groups.
(a) Establishment and Duties. The Director of Central Intelligence shall establish such boards, councils, or groups as required for the purpose of obtaining advice from within the Intelligence Community concerning:

(1) Production, review and coordination of national foreign intelligence;
(2) Priorities for the National Foreign Intelligence Program budget;
(3) Interagency exchanges of foreign intelligence information;
(4) Arrangements with foreign governments on intelligence matters;
(5) Protection of intelligence sources and methods;
(6) Activities of common concern; and
(7) Such other matters as may be referred by the Director of Central Intelligence.

(b) Membership. Advisory groups established pursuant to this section shall be chaired by the Director of Central Intelligence or his designated representative and shall consist of senior representatives from organizations within the Intelligence Community and from departments or agencies containing such organizations, as designated by the Director of Central Intelligence. Groups for consideration of substantive intelligence matters will include representatives of organizations involved in the collection, processing and analysis of intelligence. A senior representative of the Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney General, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense shall be invited to participate in any group which deals with other than substantive intelligence matters.
1.4 The Intelligence Community. The agencies within the Intelligence Community shall, in accordance with applicable United States law and with the other provisions of this Order, conduct intelligence activities necessary for the conduct of foreign relations and the protection of the national security of the United States, including:
(a) Collection of information needed by the President, the National Security Council, the Secretaries of State and Defense, and other Executive Branch officials for the performance of their duties and responsibilities;
(b) Production and dissemination of intelligence;
(c) Collection of information concerning, and the conduct of activities to protect against, intelligence activities directed against the United States, international terrorist and international narcotics activities, and other hostile activities directed against the United States by foreign powers, organizations, persons, and their agents;
(d) Special activities;
(e) Administrative and support activities within the United States and abroad necessary for the performance of authorized activities; and
(f) Such other intelligence activities as the President may direct from time to time.
1.5 Director of Central Intelligence. In order to discharge the duties and responsibilities prescribed by law, the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible directly to the President and the NSC and shall:
(a) Act as the primary adviser to the President and the NSC on national foreign intelligence and provide the President and other officials in the Executive Branch with national foreign intelligence;
(b) Develop such objectives and guidance for the Intelligence Community as will enhance capabilities for responding to expected future needs for national foreign intelligence;
(c) Promote the development and maintenance of services of common concern by designated intelligence organizations on behalf of the Intelligence Community;
(d) Ensure implementation of special activities;
(e) Formulate policies concerning foreign intelligence and counterintelligence arrangements with foreign governments, coordinate foreign intelligence and counterintelligence relationships between agencies of the Intelligence Community and the intelligence or internal security services of foreign governments, and establish procedures governing the conduct of liaison by any department or agency with such services on narcotics activities;
(f) Participate in the development of procedures approved by the Attorney General governing criminal narcotics intelligence activities abroad to ensure that these activities are consistent with foreign intelligence programs;
(g) Ensure the establishment by the Intelligence Community of common security and access standards for managing and handling foreign intelligence systems, information, and products;
(h) Ensure that programs are developed which protect intelligence sources, methods, and analytical procedures;
(i) Establish uniform criteria for the determination of relative priorities for the transmission of critical national foreign intelligence, and advise the Secretary of Defense concerning the communications requirements of the Intelligence Community for the transmission of such intelligence;
(j) Establish appropriate staffs, committees, or other advisory groups to assist in the execution of the Director's responsibilities;
(k) Have full responsibility for production and dissemination of national foreign intelligence, and authority to levy analytic tasks on departmental intelligence production organizations, in consultation with those organizations, ensuring that appropriate mechanisms for competitive analysis are developed so that diverse points of view are considered fully and differences of judgment within the Intelligence Community are brought to the attention of national policymakers;
(l) Ensure the timely exploitation and dissemination of data gathered by national foreign intelligence collection means, and ensure that the resulting intelligence is disseminated immediately to appropriate government entities and military commands;
(m) Establish mechanisms which translate national foreign intelligence objectives and priorities approved by the NSC into specific guidance for the Intelligence Community, resolve conflicts in tasking priority, provide to departments and agencies having information collection capabilities that are not part of the National Foreign Intelligence Program advisory tasking concerning collection of national foreign intelligence, and provide for the development of plans and arrangements for transfer of required collection tasking authority to the Secretary of Defense when directed by the President;
(n) Develop, with the advice of the program managers and departments and agencies concerned, the consolidated National Foreign Intelligence Program budget, and present it to the President and the Congress;
(o) Review and approve all requests for reprogramming National Foreign Intelligence Program funds, in accordance with guidelines established by the Office of Management and Budget;
(p) Monitor National Foreign Intelligence Program implementation, and, as necessary, conduct program and performance audits and evaluations;
(q) Together with the Secretary of Defense, ensure that there is no unnecessary overlap between national foreign intelligence programs and Department of Defense intelligence programs consistent with the requirement to develop competitive analysis, and provide to and obtain from the Secretary of Defense all information necessary for this purpose;
(r) In accordance with law and relevant procedures approved by the Attorney General under this Order, give the heads of the departments and agencies access to all intelligence, developed by the CIA or the staff elements of the Director of Central Intelligence, relevant to the national intelligence needs of the departments and agencies; and
(s) Facilitate the use of national foreign intelligence products by Congress in a secure manner.
1.6 Duties and Responsibilities of the Heads of Executive Branch Departments and Agencies.
(a) The heads of all Executive Branch departments and agencies shall, in accordance with law and relevant procedures approved by the Attorney General under this Order, give the Director of Central Intelligence access to all information relevant to the national intelligence needs of the United States, and shall give due consideration to the requests from the Director of Central Intelligence for appropriate support for Intelligence Community activities.
(b) The heads of departments and agencies involved in the National Foreign Intelligence Program shall ensure timely development and submission to the Director of Central Intelligence by the program managers and heads of component activities of proposed national programs and budgets in the format designated by the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall also ensure that the Director of Central Intelligence is provided, in a timely and responsive manner, all information necessary to perform the Director's program and budget responsibilities.
(c) The heads of departments and agencies involved in the National Foreign Intelligence Program may appeal to the President decisions by the Director of Central Intelligence on budget or reprogramming matters of the National Foreign Intelligence Program.
1.7 Senior Officials of the Intelligence Community. The heads of departments and agencies with organizations in the Intelligence Community or the heads of such organizations, as appropriate, shall:
(a) Report to the Attorney General possible violations of federal criminal laws by employees and of specified federal criminal laws by any other person as provided in procedures agreed upon by the Attorney General and the head of the department or agency concerned, in a manner consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, as specified in those procedures;
(b) In any case involving serious or continuing breaches of security, recommend to the Attorney General that the case be referred to the FBI for further investigation;
(c) Furnish the Director of Central Intelligence and the NSC, in accordance with applicable law and procedures approved by the Attorney General under this Order, the information required for the performance of their respective duties;
(d) Report to the Intelligence Oversight Board, and keep the Director of Central Intelligence appropriately informed, concerning any intelligence activities of their organizations that they have reason to believe may be unlawful or contrary to Executive order or Presidential directive;
(e) Protect intelligence and intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure consistent with guidance from the Director of Central Intelligence;
(f) Disseminate intelligence to cooperating foreign governments under arrangements established or agreed to by the Director of Central Intelligence;
(g) Participate in the development of procedures approved by the Attorney General governing production and dissemination of intelligence resulting from criminal narcotics intelligence activities abroad if their departments, agencies, or organizations have intelligence responsibilities for foreign or domestic narcotics production and trafficking;
(h) Instruct their employees to cooperate fully with the Intelligence Oversight Board; and
(i) Ensure that the Inspectors General and General Counsels for their organizations have access to any information necessary to perform their duties assigned by this Order.
1.8 The Central Intelligence Agency. All duties and responsibilities of the CIA shall be related to the intelligence functions set out below. As authorized by this Order; the National Security Act of 1947, as amended; the CIA Act of 1949, as amended; appropriate directives or other applicable law, the CIA shall:
(a) Collect, produce and disseminate foreign intelligence and counterintelligence, including information not otherwise obtainable. The collection of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence within the United States shall be coordinated with the FBI as required by procedures agreed upon by the Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney General;
(b) Collect, produce and disseminate intelligence on foreign aspects of narcotics production and trafficking;
(c) Conduct counterintelligence activities outside the United States and, without assuming or performing any internal security functions, conduct counterintelligence activities within the United States in coordination with the FBI as required by procedures agreed upon by the Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney General;
(d) Coordinate counterintelligence activities and the collection of information not otherwise obtainable when conducted outside the United States by other departments and agencies;
(e) Conduct special activities approved by the President. No agency except the CIA (or the Armed Forces of the United States in time of war declared by Congress or during any period covered by a report from the President to the Congress under the War Powers Resolution (87 Stat. 855)1) may conduct any special activity unless the President determines that another agency is more likely to achieve a particular objective;
(f) Conduct services of common concern for the Intelligence Community as directed by the NSC;
(g) Carry out or contract for research, development and procurement of technical systems and devices relating to authorized functions;
(h) Protect the security of its installations, activities, information, property, and employees by appropriate means, including such investigations of applicants, employees, contractors, and other persons with similar associations with the CIA as are necessary; and
(i) Conduct such administrative and technical support activities within and outside the United States as are necessary to perform the functions described in sections (a) through (h) above, including procurement and essential cover and proprietary arrangements.
1.9 The Department of State. The Secretary of State shall:
(a) Overtly collect information relevant to United States foreign policy concerns;
(b) Produce and disseminate foreign intelligence relating to United States foreign policy as required for the execution of the Secretary's responsibilities;
(c) Disseminate, as appropriate, reports received from United States diplomatic and consular posts;
(d) Transmit reporting requirements of the Intelligence Community to the Chiefs of United States Missions abroad; and
(e) Support Chiefs of Missions in discharging their statutory responsibilities for direction and coordination of mission activities.
1.10 The Department of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury shall:
(a) Overtly collect foreign financial and monetary information;
(b) Participate with the Department of State in the overt collection of general foreign economic information;
(c) Produce and disseminate foreign intelligence relating to United States economic policy as required for the execution of the Secretary's responsibilities; and
(d) Conduct, through the United States Secret Service, activities to determine the existence and capability of surveillance equipment being used against the President of the United States, the Executive Office of the President, and, as authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury or the President, other Secret Service protectees and United States officials. No information shall be acquired intentionally through such activities except to protect against such surveillance, and those activities shall be conducted pursuant to procedures agreed upon by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General.
1.11 The Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense shall:
(a) Collect national foreign intelligence and be responsive to collection tasking by the Director of Central Intelligence;
(b) Collect, produce and disseminate military and military-related foreign intelligence and counterintelligence as required for execution of the Secretary's responsibilities;
(c) Conduct programs and missions necessary to fulfill national, departmental and tactical foreign intelligence requirements;
(d) Conduct counterintelligence activities in support of Department of Defense components outside the United States in coordination with the CIA, and within the United States in coordination with the FBI pursuant to procedures agreed upon by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General;
(e) Conduct, as the executive agent of the United States Government, signals intelligence and communications security activities, except as otherwise directed by the NSC;
(f) Provide for the timely transmission of critical intelligence, as defined by the Director of Central Intelligence, within the United States Government;
(g) Carry out or contract for research, development and procurement of technical systems and devices relating to authorized intelligence functions;
(h) Protect the security of Department of Defense installations, activities, property, information, and employees by appropriate means, including such investigations of applicants, employees, contractors, and other persons with similar associations with the Department of Defense as are necessary;
(i) Establish and maintain military intelligence relationships and military intelligence exchange programs with selected cooperative foreign defense establishments and international organizations, and ensure that such relationships and programs are in accordance with policies formulated by the Director of Central Intelligence;
(j) Direct, operate, control and provide fiscal management for the National Security Agency and for defense and military intelligence and national reconnaissance entities; and
(k) Conduct such administrative and technical support activities within and outside the United States as are necessary to perform the functions described in sections (a) through (j) above.

1.12 Intelligence Components Utilized by the Secretary of Defense. In carrying out the responsibilities assigned in section 1.11, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to utilize the following:

(a) Defense Intelligence Agency, whose responsibilities shall include;

(1) Collection, production, or, through tasking and coordination, provision of military and military-related intelligence for the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other Defense components, and, as appropriate, non-Defense agencies;
(2) Collection and provision of military intelligence for national foreign intelligence and counterintelligence products;
(3) Coordination of all Department of Defense intelligence collection requirements;
(4) Management of the Defense Attache system; and
(5) Provision of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence staff support as directed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

(b) National Security Agency, whose responsibilities shall include:

(1) Establishment and operation of an effective unified organization for signals intelligence activities, except for the delegation of operational control over certain operations that are conducted through other elements of the Intelligence Community. No other department or agency may engage in signals intelligence activities except pursuant to a delegation by the Secretary of Defense;
(2) Control of signals intelligence collection and processing activities, including assignment of resources to an appropriate agent for such periods and tasks as required for the direct support of military commanders;
(3) Collection of signals intelligence information for national foreign intelligence purposes in accordance with guidance from the Director of Central Intelligence;
(4) Processing of signals intelligence data for national foreign intelligence purposes in accordance with guidance from the Director of Central Intelligence;
(5) Dissemination of signals intelligence information for national foreign intelligence purposes to authorized elements of the Government, including the military services, in accordance with guidance from the Director of Central Intelligence;
(6) Collection, processing and dissemination of signals intelligence information for counterintelligence purposes;
(7) Provision of signals intelligence support for the conduct of military operations in accordance with tasking, priorities, and standards of timeliness assigned by the Secretary of Defense. If provision of such support requires use of national collection systems, these systems will be tasked within existing guidance from the Director of Central Intelligence;
(8) Executing the responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense as executive agent for the communications security of the United States Government;
(9) Conduct of research and development to meet the needs of the United States for signals intelligence and communications security;
(10) Protection of the security of its installations, activities, property, information, and employees by appropriate means, including such investigations of applicants, employees, contractors, and other persons with similar associations with the NSA as are necessary;
(11) Prescribing, within its field of authorized operations, security regulations covering operating practices, including the transmission, handling and distribution of signals intelligence and communications security material within and among the elements under control of the Director of the NSA, and exercising the necessary supervisory control to ensure compliance with the regulations;
(12) Conduct of foreign cryptologic liaison relationships, with liaison for intelligence purposes conducted in accordance with policies formulated by the Director of Central Intelligence; and
(13) Conduct of such administrative and technical support activities within and outside the United States as are necessary to perform the functions described in sections (1) through (12) above, including procurement.

(c) Offices for the collection of specialized intelligence through reconnaissance programs, whose responsibilities shall include:

(1) Carrying out consolidated reconnaissance programs for specialized intelligence;
(2) Responding to tasking in accordance with procedures established by the Director of Central Intelligence; and
(3) Delegating authority to the various departments and agencies for research, development, procurement, and operation of designated means of collection.

(d) The foreign intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, whose responsibilities shall include:

(1) Collection, production and dissemination of military and military-related foreign intelligence and counterintelligence, and information on the foreign aspects of narcotics production and trafficking. When collection is conducted in response to national foreign intelligence requirements, it will be conducted in accordance with guidance from the Director of Central Intelligence. Collection of national foreign intelligence, not otherwise obtainable, outside the United States shall be coordinated with the CIA, and such collection within the United States shall be coordinated with the FBI;
(2) Conduct of counterintelligence activities outside the United States in coordination with the CIA, and within the United States in coordination with the FBI; and
(3) Monitoring of the development, procurement and management of tactical intelligence systems and equipment and conducting related research, development, and test and evaluation activities.

(e) Other offices within the Department of Defense appropriate for conduct of the intelligence missions and responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of Defense. If such other offices are used for intelligence purposes, the provisions of Part 2 of this Order shall apply to those offices when used for those purposes.
1.13 The Department of Energy. The Secretary of Energy shall:
(a) Participate with the Department of State in overtly collecting information with respect to foreign energy matters;
(b) Produce and disseminate foreign intelligence necessary for the Secretary's responsibilities;
(c) Participate in formulating intelligence collection and analysis requirements where the special expert capability of the Department can contribute; and
(d) Provide expert technical, analytical and research capability to other agencies within the Intelligence Community.
1.14 The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Under the supervision of the Attorney General and pursuant to such regulations as the Attorney General may establish, the Director of the FBI shall:
(a) Within the United States conduct counterintelligence and coordinate counterintelligence activities of other agencies within the Intelligence Community. When a counterintelligence activity of the FBI involves military or civilian personnel of the Department of Defense, the FBI shall coordinate with the Department of Defense;
(b) Conduct counterintelligence activities outside the United States in coordination with the CIA as required by procedures agreed upon by the Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney General;
(c) Conduct within the United States, when requested by officials of the Intelligence Community designated by the President, activities undertaken to collect foreign intelligence or support foreign intelligence collection requirements of other agencies within the Intelligence Community, or, when requested by the Director of the National Security Agency, to support the communications security activities of the United States Government;
(d) Produce and disseminate foreign intelligence and counterintelligence; and
(e) Carry out or contract for research, development and procurement of technical systems and devices relating to the functions authorized above.
Part 2
Conduct of Intelligence Activities
2.1 Need. Accurate and timely information about the capabilities, intentions and activities of foreign powers, organizations, or persons and their agents is essential to informed decisionmaking in the areas of national defense and foreign relations. Collection of such information is a priority objective and will be pursued in a vigorous, innovative and responsible manner that is consistent with the Constitution and applicable law and respectful of the principles upon which the United States was founded.
2.2 Purpose. This Order is intended to enhance human and technical collection techniques, especially those undertaken abroad, and the acquisition of significant foreign intelligence, as well as the detection and countering of international terrorist activities and espionage conducted by foreign powers. Set forth below are certain general principles that, in addition to and consistent with applicable laws, are intended to achieve the proper balance between the acquisition of essential information and protection of individual interests. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to apply to or interfere with any authorized civil or criminal law enforcement responsibility of any department or agency.
2.3 Collection of Information. Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities provided by Part 1 of this Order. Those procedures shall permit collection, retention and dissemination of the following types of information:
(a) Information that is publicly available or collected with the consent of the person concerned;
(b) Information constituting foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, including such information concerning corporations or other commercial organizations. Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI or, when significant foreign intelligence is sought, by other authorized agencies of the Intelligence Community, provided that no foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons;
(c) Information obtained in the course of a lawful foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, international narcotics or international terrorism investigation;
(d) Information needed to protect the safety of any persons or organizations, including those who are targets, victims or hostages of international terrorist organizations;
(e) Information needed to protect foreign intelligence or counterintelligence sources or methods from unauthorized disclosure. Collection within the United States shall be undertaken by the FBI except that other agencies of the Intelligence Community may also collect such information concerning present or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their present or former employees, or applicants for any such employment or contracting;
(f) Information concerning persons who are reasonably believed to be potential sources or contacts for the purpose of determining their suitability or credibility;
(g) Information arising out of a lawful personnel, physical or communications security investigation;
(h) Information acquired by overhead reconnaissance not directed at specific United States persons;
(i) Incidentally obtained information that may indicate involvement in activities that may violate federal, state, local or foreign laws; and
(j) Information necessary for administrative purposes.
In addition, agencies within the Intelligence Community may disseminate information, other than information derived from signals intelligence, to each appropriate agency within the Intelligence Community for purposes of allowing the recipient agency to determine whether the information is relevant to its responsibilities and can be retained by it.

2.4 Collection Techniques. Agencies within the Intelligence Community shall use the least intrusive collection techniques feasible within the United States or directed against United States persons abroad. Agencies are not authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance, unconsented physical search, mail surveillance, physical surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Such procedures shall protect constitutional and other legal rights and limit use of such information to lawful governmental purposes. These procedures shall not authorize:

(a) The CIA to engage in electronic surveillance within the United States except for the purpose of training, testing, or conducting countermeasures to hostile electronic surveillance;

(b) Unconsented physical searches in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:

(1) Searches by counterintelligence elements of the military services directed against military personnel within the United States or abroad for intelligence purposes, when authorized by a military commander empowered to approve physical searches for law enforcement purposes, based upon a finding of probable cause to believe that such persons are acting as agents of foreign powers; and
(2) Searches by CIA of personal property of non-United States persons lawfully in its possession.

(c) Physical surveillance of a United States person in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:

(1) Physical surveillance of present or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their present of former employees, or applicants for any such employment or contracting; and

(2) Physical surveillance of a military person employed by a nonintelligence element of a military service.

(d) Physical surveillance of a United States person abroad to collect foreign intelligence, except to obtain significant information that cannot reasonably be acquired by other means.

2.5 Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.
2.6 Assistance to Law Enforcement Authorities. Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to:
(a) Cooperate with appropriate law enforcement agencies for the purpose of protecting the employees, information, property and facilities of any agency within the Intelligence Community;
(b) Unless otherwise precluded by law or this Order, participate in law enforcement activities to investigate or prevent clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers, or international terrorist or narcotics activities;
(c) Provide specialized equipment, technical knowledge, or assistance of expert personnel for use by any department or agency, or, when lives are endangered, to support local law enforcement agencies. Provision of assistance by expert personnel shall be approved in each case by the General Counsel of the providing agency; and
(d) Render any other assistance and cooperation to law enforcement authorities not precluded by applicable law.
2.7 Contracting. Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to enter into contracts or arrangements for the provision of goods or services with private companies or institutions in the United States and need not reveal the sponsorship of such contracts or arrangements for authorized intelligence purposes. Contracts or arrangements with academic institutions may be undertaken only with the consent of appropriate officials of the institution.
2.8 Consistency With Other Laws. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to authorize any activity in violation of the Constitution or statutes of the United States.
2.9 Undisclosed Participation in Organizations Within the United States. No one acting on behalf of agencies within the Intelligence Community may join or otherwise participate in any organization in the United States on behalf of any agency within the Intelligence Community without disclosing his intelligence affiliation to appropriate officials of the organization, except in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Such participation shall be authorized only if it is essential to achieving lawful purposes as determined by the agency head or designee. No such participation may be undertaken for the purpose of influencing the activity of the organization or its members except in cases where:
(a) The participation is undertaken on behalf of the FBI in the course of a lawful investigation; or
(b) The organization concerned is composed primarily of individuals who are not United States persons and is reasonably believed to be acting on behalf of a foreign power.
2.10 Human Experimentation. No agency within the Intelligence Community shall sponsor, contract for or conduct research on human subjects except in accordance with guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. The subject's informed consent shall be documented as required by those guidelines.
2.11 Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
2.12 Indirect Participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.
Part 3
General Provisions
3.1 Congressional Oversight. The duties and responsibilities of the Director of Central Intelligence and the heads of other departments, agencies, and entities engaged in intelligence activities to cooperate with the Congress in the conduct of its responsibilities for oversight of intelligence activities shall be as provided in title 50, United States Code, section 413. The requirements of section 662 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2422), and section 501 of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 413), shall apply to all special activities as defined in this Order.
3.2 Implementation. The NSC, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Director of Central Intelligence shall issue such appropriate directives and procedures as are necessary to implement this Order. Heads of agencies within the Intelligence Community shall issue appropriate supplementary directives and procedures consistent with this Order. The Attorney General shall provide a statement of reasons for not approving any procedures established by the head of an agency in the Intelligence Community other than the FBI. The National Security Council may establish procedures in instances where the agency head and the Attorney General are unable to reach agreement on other than constitutional or other legal grounds.
3.3 Procedures. Until the procedures required by this Order have been established, the activities herein authorized which require procedures shall be conducted in accordance with existing procedures or requirements established under Executive Order No. 12036. Procedures required by this Order shall be established as expeditiously as possible. All procedures promulgated pursuant to this Order shall be made available to the congressional intelligence committees.

3.4 Definitions. For the purposes of this Order, the following terms shall have these meanings:

(a) Counterintelligence means information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted for or on behalf of foreign powers, organizations or persons, or international terrorist activities, but not including personnel, physical, document or communications security programs.

(b) Electronic surveillance means acquisition of a nonpublic communication by electronic means without the consent of a person who is a party to an electronic communication or, in the case of a nonelectronic communication, without the consent of a person who is visibly present at the place of communication, but not including the use of radio direction-finding equipment solely to determine the location of a transmitter.
(c) Employee means a person employedby, assigned to or acting for an agency within the Intelligence Community.
(d) Foreign intelligence means information relating to the capabilities, intentions and activities of foreign powers, organizations or persons, but not including counterintelligence except for information on international terrorist activities.
(e) Intelligence activities means all activities that agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to conduct pursuant to this Order.
(f) Intelligence Community and agencies within the Intelligence Community refer to the following agencies or organizations:

(1) The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA);
(2) The National Security Agency (NSA);
(3) The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA);
(4) The offices within the Department of Defense for the collection of specialized national foreign intelligence through reconnaissance programs;
(5) The Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State;
(6) The intelligence elements of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Energy; and
(7) The staff elements of the Director of Central Intelligence.

(g) The National Foreign Intelligence Program includes the programs listed below, but its composition shall be subject to review by the National Security Council and modification by the President:

(1) The programs of the CIA;

(2) The Consolidated Cryptologic Program, the General Defense Intelligence Program, and the programs of the offices within the Department of Defense for the collection of specialized national foreign intelligence through reconnaissance, except such elements as the Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense agree should be excluded;
(3) Other programs of agencies within the Intelligence Community designated jointly by the Director of Central Intelligence and the head of the department or by the President as national foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities;
(4) Activities of the staff elements of the Director of Central Intelligence;
(5) Activities to acquire the intelligence required for the planning and conduct of tactical operations by the United States military forces are not included in the National Foreign Intelligence Program.

(h) Special activities means activities conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so that the role of the United States Government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly, and functions in support of such activities, but which are not intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media and do not include diplomatic activities or the collection and production of intelligence or related support functions.

(i) United States person means a United States citizen, an alien known by the intelligence agency concerned to be a permanent resident alien, an unincorporated association substantially composed of United States citizens or permanent resident aliens, or a corporation incorporated in the United States, except for a corporation directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.

3.5 Purpose and Effect. This Order is intended to control and provide direction and guidance to the Intelligence Community. Nothing contained herein or in any procedures promulgated hereunder is intended to confer any substantive or procedural right or privilege on any person or organization.
3.6 Revocation. Executive Order No. 12036 of January 24, 1978, as amended, entitled "United States Intelligence Activities," is revoked.

1 Editorial note: The correct citation is (87 Stat. 555).

Top
Last updated: September 1, 1998
[CIA Homepage] [FAQs]

__________________________________________________

[jess1dering]

ANOTHER DATE TO NOTE !!!!....................... WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: ‘ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE’ WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval. Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also — in the delicate words of a Justice Department official — to “places where you wouldn’t find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen… would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.”
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president “has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames’s office and home in June and October 1993 by the Clinton Administration, both without a federal warrant.

[jess1dering]

1. NOTE THE DATE on this NYT's article
By DAVID BURNHAM
New York Times November 7, 1982
A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?

[Joseph Marshall]

since such laws, in those particular spheres of Constitutional power, amount to nothing more than nonbinding Congressional suggestions as to how the President might best wield the authority assigned to him, and not to Congress, by the Constitution.

My dear Kenny, you are talking through your hat. The relevant precedents go back to British Common Law establishing that even the King is not above the law.

In America, the case law starts here:

MARBURY V. MADISON [1803]

This is not a proceeding which may be varied, if the judgment of the executive shall suggest one more eligible, but is a precise course accurately marked out by law, and is to be strictly pursued. It is the duty of the secretary of state to conform to the law, and in this he is an officer of the United States, bound to obey the laws. He acts, in this respect, as has been very properly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instructions of the president. It is a ministerial act which the law enjoins on a particular officer for a particular purpose.

Therefore, the President cannot order his officers to disobey the law.

EX PARTE MILLIGAN [1866]

If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.

Therefore, "War Powers" can only apply when corresponding civil and legal authority do not exist. The FISA court is exactly such civil and legal authority and cannot be circumvented.

YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER--Primary Ruling [1952]

In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute. The [343 U.S. 579, 588] first section of the first article says that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . . ." After granting many powers to the Congress, Article I goes on to provide that Congress may "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Therefore, Congressional lawmaking power is absolute and not merely "suggestions" which the President may or may not follow.

This is more explicitly delineated in Justice Douglas' concurring opinion in YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER.

Article II which vests the "executive Power" in the President defines that power with particularity. Article II, Section 2 makes the Chief Executive the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. But our history and tradition rebel at the thought that the grant of military power carries with it authority over civilian affairs. Article II, Section 3 provides that the President shall "from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." The power to recommend legislation, granted to the President, serves only to emphasize that it is his function to recommend and that it is the function of the Congress to legislate. Article II, [343 U.S. 579, 633] Section 3 also provides that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." But, as MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER point out, the power to execute the laws starts and ends with the laws Congress has enacted.

[Kenny Pierce]

Joe,

If you have established that the President's actions fall within a sphere to which the Constitution has assigned ultimate authority to Congress, rather than the President, then you have already won your case and the "picking and choosing" bit is superfluous, albeit ex hypothesi accurate. If you have failed to establish that the President's actions fall within Congress's Constitutional sphere of authority, and you recognize that the "picking and choosing" line is (in its emotional payload) inappropriate unless the Constitutional question has already been settled, then you can readily see that you need to concentrate on the logic and leave the invective until after you've proved your case.

The way you've written your comment, it makes it seem that you think it doesn't matter what powers the Constitution applies to which branch; your "picking and choosing" line reads like an attempt to say that the President should be subject to whatever laws Congress might choose to pass -- which is to say, the line reads like a rejection of the Constitutional principle of separation of powers. For, after all, the President is, by design, precisely "permanently above the law" in certain respects -- since by "the law" in this case you mean "laws passed by Congress." In such matters he is expected, by the Constitution, to "pick and choose" which Congressional laws he pays attention to -- since such laws, in those particular spheres of Constitutional power, amount to nothing more than nonbinding Congressional suggestions as to how the President might best wield the authority assigned to him, and not to Congress, by the Constitution.

I imagine that you understand Constitutional separation of powers and that your rhetoric is just misleadingly timed, in which case, prove your Constitutional point and you won't need the rhetoric at all. Or perhaps (though I'd be surprised) you genuinely don't understand Constitutional separation of powers. At any rate, either way the rhetorical bits about "permanently above the law" and "picking and choosing" were unfortunate.

[Alexandra]

Blogenfreude,

Good morning to you too.

Before I answered your question, I did of course have a quick look at your site. Three things were of obvious importance in judging how I would answer you: 1) you are a lawyer, therefore of sound mind 2) you would like to have President Bush impeachead, and convicted of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 3) we have something in common because we both like Peter Sellers.

So now, I see what you are tryiing to say to me.

Look, yes I do support the President wholeheartedly and I do believe that what he is doing is in the best interest of America. I know you are fully aware of my convictions, which are evident in these pages.

Since you are interested in Her Majesty's Secret Service (and yes I am a royalist too), I shall tell you this, which I received yesterday from a dear friend who is ex- US intelligence:

" I am thoroughly disheartened
that there are people in a position to know who think
telling national secrets to the NY Times is the right
course of action. It makes me think there is little
hope for this nation to survive.

So few people in this country understand the nature of
the threat we are facing. It only takes one person
and a handful of chemicals and hardware to kill
hundreds. If the "law" prevents us from surveilling
those people, then we are doomed as a nation. Chaos
will ensue, and then it's every man for himself."

[Darrell]

Funny, I am constantly seeing Alexandra's love affair with America playing out on these pages daily...But the sun can always shine on my head. I must not assume that is always the case with anyone who may drop by. How do you guys read like that, anyway?

[blogenfreude]

Why does Alexandra hate America?

[Darrell]

I was just adjusting your "tin-foil hat"(so to speak), Joe...nothing more. You put yourself in some pretty heady company, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, and I thought I would bring you back to reality. Noticed you didn't comment about Echelon...but not surprised. Kind of ruins a good snit, eh? We all know Babs and Moore have had more than their fair share of opinion time. And as a good Capitalist, I think their supply should only be limited by their demand.
And I did notice that you didn't comment about Project Echelon....and did I say I am not surprised? You can direct me to the pieces you wrote in 2000 warning us that the sky is falling, Star Chambers and Privy Council, and all that.

[Joseph Marshall]

Well Darrell, I would say that Michael Moore & Barbara Streisand have as much right to speak as you do or I do, whether it puts either of our noses out of joint. They are citizens as well. Don't you agree?

I hope you do. I would be far more apprehensive about the future of our country if my friends who disagree with me about most things, didn't agree with me about this.

[Darrell]

Excuse me while I find similar outrage expressed in the MSM over the revelations of February 27, 2000...Personally, I think someone should impeach this man!

[Darrell]

"...I have spoken only as a forthright private citizen and as plainly as Tom Jefferson or Tom Paine."
Or, Michael Moore or Barbara Streisand...

FICA?

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency and four English-speaking allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand."60 MINUTES
Television Broadcast February 27, 2000 Steve Kroft, reporting...
Consider yourself warned, Joe! By the way, the CinC on this date was Former Pres. Bill Clinton.

[Joseph Marshall]

I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to this. My personal life is exceptionally pressing at the moment.

I can no longer do this issue justice. Other, better informed bloggers than me have carried it farther and faster than I can keep up with.

But I think I can make the following remarks:

"It is difficult for me to believe that The President broke the law, whilst informing both Houses, The Justice Department and The Attorney General."

This points precisely the double bind which any person in the know about this stuff is confronted with--whether it be the New York Times or a member of Congress.

If 'security of ongoing operations' is invoked to cover the deliberate breach of the law by the Administration then anyone in the know is confronted a fundamental conflict of duties essentially and inherently incompatible with Democracy and Liberty. I'm sure I don't have to spell this out for you.

The President and his Administration have already admitted that the actions are not in compliance with FICA. Condoleesa Rice said as much to Tim Russert. They are claiming unprecdented constitutional "war powers", which Rice, at least, declined to specify to Russert, to flatly ignore the Congressional statute.

This "war" is essentially endless. If you don't believe this try honestly to conceive of conditions under which we would be "completely safe from terrorism". I cannot do so, and I doubt that you can either.

So,therefore, any such claim by the President to set aside Congressional statute by fiat is a claim that the Presidency is permanently above the law. If you yourself can pick and choose which laws you follow then you are above the law.

This is exactly "Royal Perogative" as any English Monarch would have claimed it up to the time of Charles I, and as any French Monarch would have understood it. This is exactly what is incompatible with Liberty under Law.

Contrary to North by Northwest's claims, I have spoken only as a forthright private citizen and as plainly as Tom Jefferson or Tom Paine.

Nor does what I have to say have anything to do with Bill Clinton's sexual pecadillos, or anything to do with Bill Clinton at all.

This is simply tiresome projective fantasy which, while normally merely entertaining, is fundamentally and dangerously frivolous in discussing an issue so vital to all of us.

As to the header at the top of my blog, I will only echo the remark of G.K.Chesterton that a true gentleman never uses the word. I'm sure that Alexandra, at least, appreciates the layers of irony which grace my personal description of myself on my own blog--and can distinguish among them. Others have more trouble doing so, but that is their problem.

[Alexandra]

Joe/The Heretik,

This is a tough one for me, hence the reason why I quoted Glenn Greenwald who sent me a personal email (aside from the post on his own site).

What you are both saying is that The President broke the law, and he is clearly saying that he did not.

This as we both know can be, and easily will be established. It is difficult for me to believe that The President broke the law, whilst informing both Houses, The Justice Department and The Attorney General.

Fox News: "The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.
[...]
....since October 2001, the program has been renewed more than three dozen times. Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorizations. "

From the WaPo: "In a Sept. 25, 2002, brief signed by then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, the Justice Department asserted "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."

To be ill advised by his own Administration and advisors is one thing, but to have not had anyone tell him he is breaking the law at the very institution where the law is upheld, is something I still need to digest.

Not to speak of the prominent members of both sides of the House, whilst informed throughout, are now screaming foul. Surely in the past 4 years they would also have had legal advice on such a sensitive matter, and had they taken issue, would have voiced their opinion much earlier.

There is that matter of The President saying: "....assign a Justice Department prosecutor to begin investigating these leaks and prosecuting all those responsible for them or stand accused of silently aiding and abetting the enemy."

I find it difficult to imagine that he would set himself and his Administration up in this way, without being confident that he has a strong legal ground himself.

[The Heretik]

The laws are on the books. No FISA requests were turned down in 2004. The law allows for retroactive applications 72 hours after surveillance has started. Yet no applications were made by the Bush administration. What inference can be drawn from this?

The question here is not whether surveillance should or should not have happened. But if it should happened, why were established procedures avoided?

We are a government of laws. No one, not even the president, is above them. It should be noted that both the President and Secretary of State Rice today said all actions by the President have been within the bounds of his constitutional authority and his statutory authority. Neither of them has shown how this is so. Stating a premise is not proving the premise.

The argument here is not about goals. No one wants another terrorist attack. The question, though, must be how do we lawfully work toward that goal.

[Alexandra]

Rudolph Giuliani's op-ed in The NYT yesterday.

[RC]

North by Northwest,

it depends what the meaning of is, is.

; )

oed.com

[North by Northwest]

Joseph,

Quoting from the President's Radio Address yesterday:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. [...] The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. [...] The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks [...] The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.

You must be an extraordinarily versed legal expert to come forth with your bold statements. But I put it to you that you are not and that your assertions are bogus and without any foundation or merit.

I suggest instead, that you and your Liberal friends are merely hoping for a tit-for-tat retaliation for Bill Clinton's impeachment in the Lewinsky matter. I suggest that you are in fact attempting to equate Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that women" and the 'narrow' legal definition of that phrase with the President's detailed and exacting response quoted above. How you can do that is beyond me given your own standard of being a "gentleman of the Liberal political persuasion dedicated to right reason, clear thinking, cogent argument, and the public good" [quoted from the banner on top of your blog].

I put it to you that once more, you have fallen victim to partisan hype and hyperbole instead of adhering to your fine principles.

Finally, it is extraordinary how your partisan loyalty enables you to engage in the worst form of hypocrisy in so far as you seem perfectly at ease about the blatant illegality with which this information entered the public domain. May I remind you: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If of illegality you must speak, that’s your sole starting point; Democrat or Republican, the law is the law, not so?!

[RC]

Breaking News for the ny times:

Long after your mediocre rag has ceased to
exist (at least in it's print-form),
"carnivore" and "echelon" will still be here.

Why don't you folks just relocate to Pyongyang
or Tehran if things are so bad here in
America under Bush's "totalitarian-regime" ?
Your shoddy-work and anti-American propaganda
would have a much larger audience in those
peace-loving nations. You might want to start
behaving yourselves before Grand-Ayatollah
G.W. Bush decides to shut-down your national-
enquireresque rag.

: )

[Alexandra]

Sorry Joe,

One more thing. Just in case you truly believe that there have been no threats since September 11th, here is the list:

The West Coast Hijack Plot:
In mid-2002 the United States disrupted a plot to use hijacked airplanes to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States. The plotters included at least one major operational planner behind the 9/11 attacks.
The East Coast Hijack Plot:
In mid-2003 the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to use hijacked commercial airplanes to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States.
The Jose Padilla Plot:
In May 2002 the United States disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the alleged plotters, Jose Padilla, allegedly discussed the possibility of using a “dirty bomb” inside the United States. Bush has designated him an “enemy combatant.”
The British Urban Bombing Plot:
In mid-2004 the United States and partners disrupted a plot to bomb urban targets in Britain.
The Heathrow Airport Hijack Plot:
In 2003 the United States and several partners disrupted a plot to attack London’s Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this alleged attack was undertaken by a major operational figure in the 9/11 attacks.
Another British Bombing Terror Plot:
In the spring of 2004 the United States used intelligence gathered under the Patriot Act to disrupt a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in Britain.

[Darrell]

So the President takes lawful measures to protect Americans against future terrorist attacks with the knowledge and consent of Congress and the courts. Oh my! Stop the presses! Another fake scandal...Where there's hoax, there's ire!

[Alexandra]

"The key issue here is not fact of spying for security. It is the lack of court warrants. There IS a special secret court where warrants can be obtained for any sort of spying without compromising security one whit."

These rules concern incoming phone calls which must be monitored immediately! There is no time whatsoever to get an approval from a judge. That is why these check and balanced procedures were set in place. Oversight is possible only after the fact.

In this day and age of fast technology the government has to keep up with the speed with which these numbers are changed, and the second you obtain authority on one number that number is changed, redirected.

You would have to spend an inordinate amount of time waking Judges up at all hours to get court warrants for numbers that will be outdated by the time they are implemented.

In any event, the leaders of both Houses have been kept informed on a regular basis, as well as The Justice Department and The Attorney General, so who else would you like the Administration to have informed? Who for that matter else needs to know? The terrorists, are we concerned about their rights now?

The activities The President authorized are reviewed every 45 days, so perhaps you can complain to your respective representative within that period, who can in turn tell his man in Congress that you prefer to go to the snail speed post in obtaining court warrants in order to listen in on when we are going to get blown up next.

I hate to say this, but are you waiting for another disaster to strike, just so that you can stop repeating how "nothing has happened in the last four years". I suggest you thank God first and our President second for that, and not your pet Islamofascists for lack of trying.

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

What Star Chamber? What Privy Council?

Both Houses were informed of the matter and were updated regularly.

Seems to me if there were no warrants applied for there was a reason- one scknowledged by members of both parties and both Houses of Congress.

Star Chambers? Take a reality pill.

[Joseph Marshall]

Shame on you. The key issue here is not fact of spying for security. It is the lack of court warrants. There IS a special secret court where warrants can be obtained for any sort of spying without compromising security one whit.

This NSA business is the action of a King with a Star Chamber and a Privy Council, not a President who takes an oath to abide by the Constitution. As was holding people without charges and without trial. As is the claim that torture should now be OK because we have justified reasons for doing it.

They are all pieces of arbitrary authoritarian rule, NOT democratic and law abiding government. And no threat on this earth justifies them. Every authoritarian goverment of the last century made EXACTLY the same claims that "security" justified their actions.

I have lived through the threat of atomic annihilation at the hands of the Soviet Union. There was no threat greater than that. Period. But no president of that era, not even Richard Nixon, claimed such royal perogatives that George W. Bush has consistently claimed.

There not a shred of evidence that all of this bending of the law by the President [to be generous] and the provisions of the current Patriot Act have made us one jot safer. Not one.

Nor is the "after this therefore because of this" fallacy of "well we haven't had a terrorist attack since" anything that a man with mind would take seriously.

The proof the pudding is in the eating. And if you look at the actual facts of our exposure of "domestic terrorists cells" over the past four years, the results are laughable.

Not to mention the fact that this Administration has done virtually nothing BUT grab at more authoritarian power to spy, detain, and torture to ensure "homeland security".

They aren't even willing to cooperate with their own party to stem the flow of who knows who across our borders!

I suppose that's because NSA can always listen to the phone conversations of those tens of thousands of unknown people once they get here. Or because the FBI can always seize their library records and gag their librarians.

I, at least, would be willing to examine special legal powers to fight terrorism on their merits. And there are plenty of Democrats in Congress willing to examine such special legal powers. Not all of them, but plenty of them, and certainly enough them to bring a fillibuster against the new Patriot Act to a swift close.

But such willingness presupposes that the President is also willing to abide by the law. If that is not the case, if an Executive Order is equivalent to a Royal Decree, why bother for Congressional consent at all, except for window dressing?

We have no business regranting ANY such powers to a regime that has so consistently attempted to bend the law, flout the law, and has created a climate where its members and its minions routinely break the law.

[Alexandra]

According to the reports The NYT held onto this story for 12 months. They spoke about it to The White House at the time and it was decided not to publish it in the interest of National Security.

So why publish now?

Two reasons plausible, and I for one think it's a combination of both. When you have the timing and the reasons just right, as well as both parties with an agenda that matches, you have a winning combination of meeting of minds:

1) They have been in miserable shape as a newspaper. In coming out against the war in Iraq and The Patriot Act, whilst one is possibly being a success, although that is still undecided, the other stands to be thwarted by the success of the elections in Iraq.
Hence, they do have to do something to salvage their position whilst seemingly appear the staunch democrats, and promote the liberty and freedom mantra.

2) The Author of the piece in question James Risen, has a book coming out called "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration". The book is to be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster."

So now the NYT publisher and the Author of the piece both have a pressing reason to publish the story NOW. As usual any consideration for the nation's security, well being, or for that matter ongoing investigations are non existent.

Business is business and people's lives are, well, their own business....

The reasons are always in the name of democracy, but in the end for the selfish benefit of the individual and not the nation as a whole.

From what I understand NSA has been well aware all along, and so have both The Houses, the Justice Department, and The Attorney General overlooking it, all being kept updated of the dangers we face and the reasons certain measures were necessary. As soon as it comes into the public domain it lands in the laps of the very people that we are trying to protect ourselves against.

But again, as usual the priorities of the left are misplaced to say the least, and the left media's agenda is of paramount importance in deciding as to when and where and how we are spoon fed our information, for the so called benefit of free speech.

God help us if there is some kind of terrorist attack when we are not protected by the Patriot Act. For the naysaying senators to allow The Patriot Act to expire is to play with fire. It is to take the chance that terrorists will not act in that interim, in that period where the act falls and we're relegated to using the authorities that we had before September 11th.

That's taking the white flag analogy simply too far!

[jeff stiles]

Word of the year: Gipper-esque.

Thanks RC! :)

[North by Northwest]

Can't help put play with words here: The German word 'das Gift' is translated to 'the poison'.

Dr Dean
(the 'poison' that keeps on giving)

[RC]

"If only the leaders of the opposition had more
common-sense and decency and resist inciting more
bogus dissent."

seven words,

dr. dean
(the gift that keeps on giving)

Case closed.

[North by Northwest]

Come to think about it, you've got to laugh. Laugh at the many empty faces amongst our Liberal friends when they realize that all this posturing is nothing but pure politics and absolutely nothing to do with rational thought. Laugh at their expression when they realize that they've swallowed it all hook line and sinker and spent months rationalizing and propagating it; when they realize what utter pawns they've been in a simple game of political chess. If only the leaders of the opposition had more common sense and decency and resist inciting more bogus dissent.

[Jeremiah]

Alexandra, your dutiful gathering of substantive web-based analysis is exemplary. The Lehrer appearance is a clear example of the president's articulateness. "Europe's Problem - and Ours" takes a page from the Norman Podhoretz playbook ("My Negro Problem - and Ours") The chainsaw photo surpasses what Molly Ivins and her publishers opted for when they were preparing Bushwhacked for press. ATB is a feast for thought.

[Darrell]

Beautiful picure! "Time to cut the 'dead wood'!"

Secret #3: It does not matter what the Democrats knew, or even said in the past: All that matters is if we can fool enough people into voting for Democrats in the future. And, maybe we can make a few bucks on the book!

[RC]

a nice line would be,

"mr. ahmaghinejad, tear-down those reactors !"

or,

"to the democracy and freedom-loving people of
Iran, we have the satanic-mullahcracy contained
and surrounded by our armed-forces; the time is
here and now for a regime-change in your nation."

you know, something Gipperesque.

[jeff stiles]

All these examples show that Republicans should be on the offensive a lot more these days. Most people listen only to the MSM, and have no clue what is actually happening:

The fact is, our civil liberties are being taken away when the government has its hands tied behind its back by the liberals and moderates in Congress and therefore cannot effectively protect us!!

I hope the President comes out strong in his national address Sunday night!

[Stefan]

I love all of the Democrat’s feigned indignation at civil liberties “violations” but when they are in power they have shown themselves to be in full support of supreme heavy-handedness. Remember the Branch Davidians? They brought in tanks, shot the place up, and then ended up burning it to the ground killing men, women, and many children!! Nice work guys. Then there was the Gonzalez boy from Cuba who was seized from his unarmed relatives in the middle of the night in full commando style. Very subtle guys. If these things had happened under a Republican administration well, I am sure you all know the “outrage” these civil liberties poseurs would be feeling.

[Joshua Minton]

We all should have known that Bush would have put the NSA on internal communication within the states--this is just common sense because as important as it is to know what the enemy is doing in caves on the other side of the world, it's even more important to know what they're doing in our own backyards.

And speaking on a wider scope, the elected leaders in the US always go through this character crucifixion after which they are lauded for what decent public efforts they were successful at helping achieve while in office.

Bush keeps drawing the shortest straw of late but we shouldn't be tallying the score sheet until the game is done in January, 2009.

[RC]

number of attacks against the USA on US soil
since 9.11,

0

Apparently this successfull result has proven
to be unacceptable for a dying-msm institution
that is overstocked with paper & ink.
let's hope and pray that the patriotic-folks
at Ft. Meade continue their good-work, with
less-exposure from the anti-American,
secular-fundamentalist imbecils at the grey
and rapidly-fading old-lady of the msm.

what's the times' next idiotic-move, are they
going to post a video of the 7th floor at
Langley on their web-site ?
Morons !

ps. the photo is eerily reminiscent of,
"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"

ciao bella !

: )

[D. Ox]

Bush Whack:

It may have been a bad week as far as the media and dems are concerned.

President Bush fired back at Congressional dopey dems in his radio address today for attacking him for the NSA eavesdropping operation that was curtailed over a year ago. He charged:

#1 Nobody's civil rights are being violated, the suspects have clear links to Al-quaida and there exists probable cause;

#2 Secret? Duh, Congressional leaders have been briefed on the operation over a dozen times.

But, let's not worry about facts or logic or national security, hey, the dems gotta get back their power.

Sorry I didn't vote more often, Alexandra! But congratulations on a fine showing.

D. Ox