What a lineup!
I listened to the show & reported what I heard. In some parts, I paraphrased what struck me as essential. I didn't try to capture Larry's questions; just the guests' answers and ruminations. Hopefully this is the gist of it.
First, Larry grills Alberto Gonzalez, partly on Al Gore's comments earlier today. Next up James Risen, responding in part to AG Gonzalez' statements. Then comes Russel Tice, NSA whistleblower and source for the NY Times Story ringing in with his perspective.
Finally, a round-robin video panel:
Russell Tice joins Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Dianne Feinstein (both Senators serve on both the Judicial Committee and the Intelligence Committee); David Gergen, former White House advisor under Nixon; and Michael Isikoff, Newsweek investigative reporter.
...knead, then fold...
These are AG Gonzalez' statements:
"We'll have an opportunity to come before the Judiciary Committee..."
"Perhaps in straightforward cases we can get authority quickly, but these are not straightforward cases"
"The President has directed that we make available to him all tools available under the law."
"This is a highly classified program."
"We're talking about communication where one end of the communication is outside the US."
"I don't know why there would be a need for a special counsel. We firmly believe that the president does have the authority."
James Risen, Pulitzer Prize winning National Security writer for the NY Times, and author of State of War: The Secret History of the CIA & the Bush Administration reacts to Gonzalez' comments:
He made the case that they will be making.
The Critics of the admin argue that they have skirted the law to test the limit. He mentioned Aldrich Ames, soviet spy. AG Janet Reno had authorized a warrantless physical search. After Ames, congress closed that loophole.
Vigorous investigative reporting is absolutely critical to a healthy democracy. There were a number of people in government who believed that something illegal was going on. People were deeply troubled about something. He believes the sources who helped them in [the NY Times] story were true American patriots. This was the exact opposite of the Plame case. This was whistleblowers in the government.
He's protecting his source.
The end result was a story that no one has disputed.
It's important to remember, since this is MLK day, that in the 1960's they were using domestic wiretapping, and they used that information to blackmail Corretta Scott King.
In this program now, there's been very little oversight.
We are in a period much like the early cold war period, where we were not certain the extent and scope of the threat we faced. What is the nature & extent of the terrorist threat?
Presidents in the past have written executive orders or opinions that they have the authority to do warrantless searches. That authority has never been exercised before.
The administration's argument as to why keep it secret: "So that the terrorists wouldn't know they were being listened to." That argument is debateable.
On the Risen-Lichtblau NY Times story
"I thought it was a good story, but I didn't think it was going to be this big."
Russell Tice:
"I've kept this under my hat for a long time, but with the NY Times story, I felt that I could come forward."
"I talked to Eric & Jim [Lichtblau & Risen] about the NSA. We talked about technology, but I didn't reveal anything classified."
Senator Orrin Hatch:
There are some very intricate legal questions here and they're going to have to really look at this. He can see where people could be very upset under the law and think that the president might not have acted appropriately. The fact that they passed a FISA law in Congress, that should be very important.
Senator Dianne Feinstein:
Everyone wants any connection to Al Queda or terrorists to be investigated, but she doesn't think he has a plenary power. Senator Daschle said, "No." to adding the last minute section to spy inside the US. She can't understand why the administration didn't use one of the two post-unwarranted-search escape hatches in the FISA law.
The FISA court is secret. Nobody knows. Terrorists don't know. Why not use the FISA court?
Michael Isikoff:
What was told to the congressional leaders was extremely limited. Daschle told him he had received limited briefing by VP Cheney. There will be review, there will be hearings.
David Gergen:
Of course the NSA has to do surveillance. The question is how it's done. There ought to be some checks on how this is done. If the system is inadequate, why didn't Bush go back to congress?
He is suspicious, hearing any administration start talking about unlimited executive powers.
Russell Tice:
Mr. Tice wants to testify before Congress. Most of these programs are very beneficial to our country...but apparently we have very little oversight.
Senator Orrin Hatch:
Of course, some of the hearing sessions will be secret.
Senator Dianne Fienstien:
Al Gore raised a very real point. This isn't the first instance of a kind of arrogance of power. In late 2001 they passed an amendment to the National Security act, that wasn't followed either. Nobody knows how many people, who, how, what numbers, whether there's a database.
It's all in secret, no one knows.
Michael Isikoff:
He doesn't expect that the administration's witnesses will disclose much in public. The Intelligence Committee will meet in secret. AG Gonzlez said the program had been reviewed & approved by lawyers in the Justice Dept. Other opinions of the same attorneys, such as the torture memo, have been subsequently thrown out.
David Gergen:
Americans are legitimately concerned about their security.
As people understand what's at stake here.
Very soon it led to abuses ala Nixon.
Nixon tried to blackmail Coretta Scott King
Power can corrupt unless it's checked.
.
Senator Orrin Hatch:
We're living in an age that's like no other age.
We'll have to face terrorists all our lives.
Should we have some constraints? Yes.
The real issue is, what are we going to do as congress?
Are we going to make sure Americans' rights are protected or are we going to ignore it?
Feinstein:
This crosses party lines. People are concerned. The 4th amendment is involved. This isn't a war against the state. Are we going to have unsupervised, unwarranted, data collection and databases of that information for decades?
Yes, the president should protect us, but he should use the law whenever possible.
Senator Orrin Hatch:
There's an exception in the 4th amendment. The question is, what is reasonable.
Russell Tice:
When this first came out, he was angry. They removed his security clearance for psychological concerns, though NSA had quite recently determined him to be completely normal.
Michael Isikoff:
You don't ultimately know what the standard is they're using, for what triggers the unwarranted searches, so you have no way of knowing if there are abuses.
David Gergen:
He does believe that these hearings will be productive. The administration will be on guard, so there will be fewer incursions. He wonders whether the admin said, "The Hell with FISA.", specifically because they saw an opportunity to expand presidential authority.
I thought some interesting viewpoints were contrasted. Hope that was less painful to read than it was to code.
Peace.