Not Three Branches, Not Two Branches, Just One Branch of Government

/in , /by

Apparently, in addition to sending out a chain letter stating "butt out" to five or six members of Congress yesterday, DOJ also sent a letter to Judge Henry Kennedy, telling him not to get involved in the torture tape question (h/t Scarecrow).

The Bush administration told a federal judge it was not obligated to preserve videotapes of CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists and urged the court not to look into the tapes’ destruction.

In court documents filed Friday night, government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy that demanding information about the tapes would interfere with current investigations by Congress and the Justice Department.

Now, BushCo is apparently claiming–to Kennedy, at least–that the CIA was free to destroy the torture tapes since the tapes didn’t come from Gitmo.

Kennedy ordered the administration in June 2005 to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

Five months later, the CIA destroyed the interrogation videos. The recordings involved suspected terrorists Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri

Government lawyers told Kennedy the tapes were not covered by his court order because Zubaydah and al-Nashiri were not at the Guantanamo military prison in Cuba. The men were being held overseas in a network of secret CIA prisons. By the time President Bush acknowledged the existence of those prisons and the prisoners were transferred to Guantanamo, the tapes had been destroyed.

Of course, such sophistry won’t work for Leonie Brinkema–whose questions about interrogation tapes would seem to have included the Abu Zubaydah tapes. Nor should they cover the FOIA court battle in Alvin Hellerstein’s court, which pertain to all detainees held abroad. Read more →

Oversight or Politics?

/in , /by

Michael Mukasey has engaged in a remarkable bit of sophistry with his refusal to clue Congress in on the joint DOJ/CIA IG investigation into the destruction of the torture tapes. He explains his decision as an attempt to avoid "any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence."

As to your remaining questions, the Department has a long-standing policy of declining to provide non-public information about pending matters. This policy is based in part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence. Accordingly, I will not at this time provide further information in response to your letter, but appreciate the Committee’s interests in this matter. At my confirmation hearing, I testified that I would act independently, resist political pressure and ensure that politics plays no role in cases brought by the Department of Justice. Consistent with that testimony, the facts will be followed wherever they lead in this inquiry, and the relevant law applied.

Of course, the "political influence" Mukasey was asked to address during his nomination hearings was the kind exerted when a Senator or a Congresswoman called the Attorney General privately to demand that a USA either accelerate the prosecution of a political figure or be fired. In this matter, Mukasey has been asked to respond to what is an almost unparalleled degree of bipartisan support for an open inquiry into a matter that just stinks, already, of a cover-up. Leahy and Specter (and Reyes and Hoekstra and Durbin and Biden and more) called for a procedure that had oversight built in.

And Mukasey said no. Read more →

When All EOs Are Pixie Dust, It Means Dick Can Declassify Anything He Wants

/in , /by

Brit Hume once asked Dick Cheney whether he had declassified "information" in response to Joe Wilson’s op-ed. Cheney claimed he had the ability under an Executive Order to declassify such "information."

HUME: On another subject, court filings have indicated that Scooter Libby has suggested that his superiors — unidentified — authorized the release of some classified information. What do you know about that?

CHENEY: There’s nothing I can talk about, Brit. It’s an issue that’s been under investigation for a couple of years. I’ve cooperated fully, including being interviews done by a special prosecutor. All of it’s now going to trial. Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is a great guy. I worked with him for a long time. I have tremendous regard for him. I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case and it is therefore inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case.

HUME: Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a vice president has the authority to declassify information?

CHENEY: There is an executive order to that effect.

HUME: There is.

CHENEY: Yeah.

HUME: Have you done it?

CHENEY: Well, I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions.

HUME: Have you —

(CROSSTALK)

CHENEY: I don’t want to get into that. There’s an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously it focuses first and foremost on the president, but also includes the vice president.

But the EO in question–EO 12958 as modified by EO 13292–says no such thing. The modified EO gives the Vice President to classify information. Read more →

All Your Data Belong to George

/in /by

There’s a striking passage in one of the documents released in yesterday’s document dump.

Would NSA object to a legislative codification of E.O. 12333 minimization?

Yes because it can be difficult to change a statute if the procedures need to be changed in order to meet operational needs.

The passage refers to minimization, the process by which intelligence agencies protect the privacy of Americans whose communications are collected incidentally to their wiretapping activities. I find the passage striking, first of all, because it (indeed, the whole document) emphasizes the basis for minimization requirements in EO 12333, and not FISA. In response to a question about where minimization comes from, the document points to the EO.

Where does the need for minimization procedures come from?

The most direct answer is Executive Order 12333. Section 2.3 of that Order specifies that agencies in the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain, or disseminate information concerning U.S. persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General.

This basically repeats that passage of EO 12333, which says,

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.

And then goes on to describe the kind of information that can be collected.

But why refer to an Executive Order, when FISA imposes a statutory requirement on minimization? And FISA’s minimization requirements provide more detail about what can and cannot happen with US person data. Read more →

Nacchio’s Hearing–before the Judges Who Gave Him Bail–Set for Next Week

/in , /by

I said yesterday that the lawsuits against the telecoms were the only means left for us to find out how the government spied on Americans. I forgot about Joseph Nacchio, whose appeal will be heard by the same folks who decided his appeal addressed a "substantial issue."

The same three appellate judges who ruled that Joe Nacchio could remain free pending an appeal of his conviction of insider trading will hear his case next week, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals announced Monday.

That could favor the former Qwest CEO because the judges already decided when they granted Nacchio’s request to stay out of prison that there was "a substantial question of law or fact" that could lead to a reversal of his April conviction.

"Nacchio has to be very happy," said Jay Brown, a University of Denver law professor who has followed the case.

The judges already have drawn some conclusions about the case and are sympathetic to Nacchio, Brown added.

But Marcy Glenn, head of the appellate practice group for the Holland & Hart law firm, didn’t think one should read too much into the fact that the panel is the same.

"The earlier decision was an interim decision, and it was made before there were any briefings on the merits of the case," Glenn said. "I would expect (the three-judge panel) to be absolutely open to all arguments at this point."

Oral arguments are scheduled for 2 p.m., Dec. 18. The case is being heard on an expedited basis, though no deadline for a decision has been set and the panel may issue its ruling at any time.

Jeralyn Merritt live-blogged a good deal of Nacchio’s trial, so hopefully she’ll give us her expert opinion on this appeal.

Phone Slip

/in , /by

MadDog points out that the documents released through FOIA to EFF are available. These are documents, remember, relating to communications about the FISA amendment between DNI McConnell and Congress or representatives of telecom companies.

Declaration of what’s included

Document dump one

Document dump two

I’m reading through things now. But one thing is immediately apparent. There is almost no trace of any conversations between telecom companies and ODNI employees–there’s just one phone slip.

ODNI located one document that is potentially responsive to request number one. This document is a telephone message slip that contains the handwritten personal notes and mental impressions of an ODNI employee. This document is being withheld because it is not an agency record under FOIA. In addition, the documents qualifies to be withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions 1,3,5 and 6.

Boy, those phone companies, they’re pretty careful, huh? Read more →

Did the D.O. Lawyer Even Know about Brinkema’s Request?

/in , /by

While it has clear Isikovian blind spots–like the rather obvious coincidence between the terror tapes timeline and the events in Leonie Brinkema’s courtroom–there are some interesting tidbits in this Isikoff-Hosenball article on the "paper trail" of the decision to destroy the torture tapes. Most importantly, it sounds like the Directorate of Operations lawyer who purportedly authorized the destruction of the tapes only said there was no legal reason not to do so.

Included in the paper trail is an opinion from a CIA lawyer assigned to the Clandestine Service that advises that there is no explicit legal reason why the Clandestine Service had to preserve the tapes, according to both former and current officials. The document does not, however, directly authorize the tapes’ destruction or offer advice on the wisdom or folly of such a course of action, according to a source familiar with its contents, who declined to be identified discussing the controversial topic.

Which suggests this lawyer had no fucking clue that Judge Leonie Brinkema had asked the government about such tapes explicitly, within weeks of the time when the tapes were destroyed. I’m guessing that was by design–the only way they could figure out how to get a legal opinion defending the indefensible, the destruction of evidence. Read more →

We’re Not Getting the FISA Opinions … Which Leaves Just the Lawsuits

/in /by

The FISA Court announced today that it will not release its opinions to the public.

The nation’s spy court said Tuesday that it will not release its documents regarding the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in a rare on-the-record opinion, said the public has no right right to view the documents because they deal with the clandestine workings of national security agencies.

So um, yo, Senate? If you give the telecoms immunity, we’ll never know how they spied on us.

I’m struck by how similar this opinion–written by John Bates–is to the opinion he wrote in the Wilson lawsuit. He acknowledged that there’s merit to the request, as he suggested that Valerie’s outing was troubling.

Bates acknowledged that the public would benefit from seeing the documents. The decision-making process would be understood, he said, and public oversight could help safeguard against government abuse.

And then, as he did with the Wilson opinion, he said, "um, no."

But the dangers of releasing such sensitive materials far outweigh that public benefit, Bates said.

Public opinions from the court are so rare, it’s not immediately clear what the ACLU’s options are. Because Bates alone signed the ruling, the group might be able ask for a review by the full panel. Or, it might be able to challenge the ruling before a federal appeals court.

Update: Here’s a copy of the opinion. 

Bush Turned His EO on Classified Information into Pixie Dust, Too

/in /by

Yesterday, I expanded on the reasons why the OLC opinion holding that Presidents aren’t bound by their own Executive Orders is so scary. It means that every Executive Order may have been turned to Pixie Dust by the President–and we’d never know it.

Unless, of course, there were persistent, unpunished violations of what we believed to be the Executive Order. If there were an Executive Order that the Executive branch was publicly flouting, we might assume that Bush had turned that EO, too, into Pixie Dust.

And that is apparently what happened with EO 12958. It governs the treatment of classified information: what can be classified, when it should be declassified, what records one should keep of classification and declassification, and who can declassify classified information, and how classified information should be protected.

It’s an EO that Vice President Cheney has had epic difficulties with.

In 2003, for example, Vice President Cheney (and the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board) stopped providing the National Archives with data describing his office’s classification and declassification activities. No explanation, he just stopped doing so.

Then, in 2004, the National Archives prepared to do an inspection of OVP, as it is mandated to do. Yet OVP refused to let the NA conduct the inspection.

Finally, when Bill Leonard of ISOO appealed to DOJ for a ruling on Cheney’s refusal to submit to the plain text meaning of Bush’s EO, he was told (six months later) that the EO had turned to Pixie Dust. Specifically, he was told four years after the fact that President Bush did not intend for OVP to be an agency under the EO.

On July 12, 2007, the Counsel to the President wrote a letter to Congress stating that "[t]he President has asked me to confirm to you that … the Office of the Vice President … is not an ‘agency’ for purposes of the Order." … That statement on behalf of the President resolves the question you presented to the Attorney General. Therefore, the Department of Justice will not be providing an opinion addressing this question.

Read more →

When All Executive Orders Turn to Pixie Dust

/in /by

I promised to respond to Marty Lederman’s response to Sheldon Whitehouse’s speech today; though I should admit right away that the Libby non-appeal has changed my approach dramatically. So you won’t see everything today.

Marty assesses the three propositions that Whitehouse has had declassified and is unimpressed.

The Administration has now permitted Whitehouse to talk about three aspects of the OLC Opinions, and that’s what he did yesterday. He expressed incredulity about all three. But there’s a reason the Administration gave him the green light on those three matters — because the OLC statements in question are boilerplate, and fairly uncontroversial (with one possible, important exception, noted below). There are undoubtedly very audacious and disturbing aspects of many of those OLC memos — such as the arguments that the AUMF superseded FISA and that the President has a constitutional right to violate FISA; and almost certainly descriptions of how much broader and more indiscriminate the NSA program was before Jack Goldsmith reined it in a bit in early 2004 — but the three statements Whitehouse identified, standing alone, are not terribly noteworthy, at least not from a constitutional perspective. [my emphasis]

Marty is assessing these, of course, as a former OLC lawyer. And he finds, for the most part, the three propositions are constitutional. Let me be clear that, as a non-lawyer, I’m assessing the propositions by what they suggest about Bush’s activities, which is part of the difference between Marty’s calm and my outrage. I’m going to come back and look at the two propositions Marty is least excited about (numbers 2 and 3 in Senator Whitehouse’s list). For now, though, let me jump ahead to the one that both Marty and I were most troubled by: Read more →

image_print