Obviously, the CIA does not want to be charged with initiating the violations of the Constitution and international law about which some of its members are beginning to talk to the Washington Post. However………
Surely the Washington Post is aware that no bureaucracy comes forward with the kind of comprehensive program of official secrecy set up by the Bush administration in a couple of days. So, the references to orders and directives and legislative presentations being prepared after September 11, 2001 are disingenuous. The take-over of the American government was well prepared long before the supposed “trigger” occurred. How else were all these individuals bereft of any qualms about violating the constitution already in place?
Of course, when one considers events from the perspective of a well-prepared coup, then one has to consider that the triggering event was part of the plan. Which would account for the failure to do a complete forensic analysis of that particular crime.
One has to wonder to what extent the shroud of secrecy into which our rights to privacy are being sucked is just an elaborate cover-up of the crime of the century.
Representative Nancy Pelosi made here concerns known early. What, exactly, they were is still not clear as of January 3, 2006 since her letter and the response from the National Security Adviser are both classified and heavily redacted as released. At the least, these provide evidence that secrecy is being employed to keep information from the public. Since it’s my experience that such behavior merely protects people from being accountable for their performance in their jobs, it’s not a practice I appreciate.
October 11, 2001
Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden, USAF Director National Security Agency Fort George G. Mead, Maryland 20755 Washington, D.C. 20340-1001
Dear General Hayden:
During your appearance before the committee on October 1, you indicated that you had been operating since the September 11 attacks with an expansive view of your authorities with respect to the conduct of electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related statutes, orders, regulations, and guidelines. You seemed to be inviting expressions of concern from us, if there were any, and, after the briefing was over and I had a chance to reflect on what you said, I instructed staff to get more information on this matter for me. For several reasons, including what I consider to be an overly broad interpretation of President Bush’s directive of October 5 on sharing with Congress “classified or sensitive law enforcement information” it has not been possible to get answers to my questions.
Without those answers, the concerns I have about what you said on the 1st can not be resolved, and I wanted to bring them to your attention directly. You indicated that you were treating as a matter of first impression,
being of foreign intelligence interest. As a result, you were forwarding the intercepts, and any information
without first receiving a request for that identifying information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although I may be persuaded by the strength of your analysis
I believe you have a much more difficult case to make
Therefore, I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting. Until I understand better the legal analysis regarding the sufficiency of the authority which underlies your decision on the appropriate way to proceed on this matter, I will continue to be concerned.
Sincerely, /s/ NANCY PELOSI Ranking Democrat
18 October 2001
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence H-405, The Capitol Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Pelosi:
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify any ambiguity that may have arisen as a result of my briefing on October 1 to members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
In my briefing, I was attempting to emphasize that I used my authorities to adjust NSA’s collection and reporting.
Again, thank you for allowing me to clarify this matter.