WP: Contradictions, mixed messages muddle govt. rationale for spying

[DeepModem Mom]

For the Record
Varied Rationales Muddle Issue of NSA Eavesdropping

By Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 27, 2006; Page A05


President Bush said yesterday that he didn't seek congressional approval for a warrantless domestic eavesdropping program for one simple reason: He didn't need it.

"We believe there's a constitutional power granted to presidents as well as, this case, a statutory power," Bush said. "And I'm intending to use that power."

It is one of several explanations on the topic from Bush and his aides, who have provided at least two separate rationales for why they did not ask for statutory authority for the program. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the administration had considered seeking legislation but determined it would be impossible to get, adding later in the same news conference that authorities did not want to expose the program's existence. White House spokesman Scott McClellan has echoed the latter point, saying the administration feared that details of the classified program would be exposed publicly.

The subject is one of several elements in the NSA spying debate that have been clouded by apparent contradictions and mixed messages from the government since the program was revealed last month. The confusion has cleared up little in recent days, as the White House has embarked on a multi-pronged campaign to defend the legality of the controversial program.

Gonzales and other officials, for example, have repeatedly said that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs secret surveillance in the United States, is too cumbersome to be applied to the NSA eavesdropping program. Yet the Justice Department raised concerns about a 2002 bill to loosen FISA requirements....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012601990.html

[leftchick]

1. contradictions/mixed messages = LYING to cover breaking the law

pretty simple.

[Burried News]

2. Explanation of Presidential Powers

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/q-our-omnipotent-president-q.html
Excerpt:
Q. How does a War Bill become a War Law?
A. It all begins with the president, who submits a bill to the president. If a majority of both the president and the president approve the bill, then it passes on to the president, who may veto it or sign it into law. And even then the president can override himself with a two-thirds vote.
Q. See it's the checks and balances that make all the difference in our democratic system.
A. It's true.
Q. Can the president spy on me without a warrant?
A. The president would never, ever spy on you, unless you're talking to a terrorist.
Q. That sounds reasonable!
A. Or an associate of a terrorist or a suspected associate of a terrorist or a possible suspected relative of a member of an affiliate of a terrorist or someone with a name that's spelled like a terrorist's or someone who's been mistakenly identified as a terrorist by an NSA algorithm.
END of Excerpt

[Stephanie]

3. it's unravelling

the web of lies is too vast - they've lost control of it

[EFerrari]

4. Don't those FISA courts have some kind of obligation

in this situation? Don't those justices also take an oath to uphold the Constitution?

[leftchick]

5. Well this is interesting....

you would think the senators would be pretty fuck sick of being lied to repeatedly...

<snip>

Confusion over the issue deepened further yesterday after officials discovered two versions of a Justice statement on the legislation. One, which was posted on the Federation of American Scientists Web site and quoted in media reports, noted possible constitutional concerns. The other, held by the Senate intelligence committee, did not include that issue. Officials could not explain the disparity.

[EFerrari]

6. Well, if they "don't know" they are being lied to, they can

not worry their heads about it and just hunker down and do their job . . . ooops!

[Bob3]

7. Ah what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive.

There's that other Bonn mot "I always tell the truth - that way I have less to remember"

Seriously, what this means is that a) they can't get their stories straight (no big news with this bunch of clowns) and b) they're lying through their teeth about what they are doing - which implies that if we do ever find out (hey how about some hearings okay?) who they were really spying on (political opponents like say Cindy Sheehan) the fallout would be massive.

[gratuitous]

8. A muddled rationale, Washington Post?

Now, I'm no criminal lawyer, but I've watched a lot of episodes of Law & Order. Usually when the cops are questioning a suspect, and his story changes three or four times, they strongly suspect the suspect is lying and it turns out he's guilty. In this case, the corrupt Bush administration is once again providing several different cover stories for an act of blatant criminality. The Post sees this right before its bovine eyes, and their only reaction is to shift its cud to the other side of its snout and muse that the administration is giving out mixed messages.

This is naked corruption and blatant criminality, Post. This is a high crime. This is an impeachable offense.

[DeepModem Mom]

9. You're right, that is the kiss of death on "Law & Order." Swift...

and sure.