Why I love David Gregory (MSNBC)

Crossposted on Dailykos

In yesterday's White House press gaggle, David Gregory (MSNBC) just stepped up and Cleaned-Scotty's-Clock and it was a wonderful thing to witness - and it should be remembered, therefore I am presenting it here as well as my own appropriately snarky commentary and background info.

First the Party-line From The White House

MR. McCLELLAN: We've already talked about the FISA court. That is a very important tool, as well, and we make very good use of the FISA tool. But FISA was created in a different time period for longer-term monitoring. This program is for a shorter period of time aimed at detection and prevention. And so that's what it's focus is.

And I think we have to step back and remember that -- and I think the Attorney General talked about this in his remarks yesterday -- there is a longtime tradition in war of engaging in surveillance of the enemy.

Overseas? Yes. Domestically, well yes too if you include COINTELPRO, but I wouldn't recommend using that as your example, Scotty.

That's what this is. We are a nation at war, and there is an enemy that is deadly and determined to strike us again and inflict even greater damage. And we saw the problem highlighted in the 9/11 Commission report when we learned too late about communications that were taking place from two hijackers that were in the United States talking to people outside the United States.

But the problem there wasn't that the couldn't pick up the communications - they did. The problem with some of the most daming communictions was that they didn't translate them soon enough. The 9/11 Commission Report also said this...

In May 2001, the drumbeat of reporting grew louder with reports to top officials that "Bin Ladin public profile may presage attack" and "Bin Ladin network's plans advancing." In early May, a walk-in to the FBI claimed there was a plan to launch attacks on London, Boston, and New York. Attorney General John Ashcroft was briefed by the CIA on May 15 regarding al Qaeda generally and the current threat reporting specifically. The next day brought a report that a phone call to a U.S. embassy had warned that Bin Ladin supporters were planning an attack in the United States using "high explosives." On May 17, based on the previous day's report, the first item on the CSG's agenda was "UBL: Operation Planned in U.S."9 The anonymous caller's tip could not be corroborated.

Why do you need to tap the phones of Americans without a warrant when you have people calling you direcly, and walking in the front door telling you "Osama Bin Ladin is going to attack" - and you don't listen?

Ok, Rant over....back to Scotty.

MCCLENNAN: That's the kind of problem this is designed to detect, and then be able to act and prevent attacks. It's about connecting the dots. That's what the 9/11 Commission said we need to do.

So the President not only had the authority to do what he's doing, but he has the responsibility to do what he is doing, because it's about saving lives. It's about preventing attacks. It's very limited in nature, and it's focused on international communications involving al Qaeda members or affiliated terrorist organizations from either communicating inside the United States to someone outside, or communicating from outside the United States to someone inside. And I think the American people expect us to do everything within our lawful power to protect them. And the President made it very clear that as long as he is President, he will continue acting to do everything he can within his powers and within the law to protect the American people.

But we work very closely with Congress. We have briefed members of Congress on this vital tool over the course of the law few years, and we'll continue to work closely with Congress.

So they've prevented attacks, eh? Which attacks? Who whom? Where? During his Presidency the Clinton Administration prevented attacks on LAX, the UN, the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, CIA Headquarters and 11 simultaneuos airliner bombs over the pacific. Just what you done for us lately Scotty?

This is where David steps up to the plate.

DAVID GREGORY Q I think that -- I mean, the way I read this question, he's asking, will you ask the FISA court for approval of this program -- not specific instances, but will you ask the FISA court if this is -- if this program, the overall program, is sanctioned under the law. And that's the -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if the FISA court wants to talk any more about any communications that they have had with administration officials, that's up to them. It is a highly classified court, for good reasons.

Q They won't talk about it.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's why I leave it up to them. If there's anything more they want to say, then I would leave it up to them.

So basically, the court can't talk about it for security reasons and the President, Attorney General and General Hayden are talking about it, but Scotty won't answer questions about whether they've considered amending the law? Huh?

Q Can I just follow on this point, because let's be clear about a couple of things. First of all, the President argues, asserts, that he has the power to unilaterally authorize this wiretapping, okay? It's not -- he doesn't have the monopoly on the truth of how --

MR. McCLELLAN: The courts have upheld it and previous administrations have asserted it, as well.

Q Well, that was different, and that is, again -- this is your position --

MR. McCLELLAN: Same authority. Same authority, David.

Q -- that's in dispute.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not -- hang on -- that's not in dispute. And look at the Associate Attorney General under the Clinton administration. The courts have upheld this authority in the past. Look at the federal courts. The President talked about it and we provided it in a document. So that's wrong.

Q No, I don't think that's wrong, and we can go into that, but I don't -- our time is not best spent doing that.

No, Scotty it's not the same authority and it's not wrong.. McClellan it would appear is referring to the congressional testimony made in 1993 by Clinton Admin official Jamie Gorelick during the Aldrige Ames case where his home was physically searched without a warrant. At that time, the FISA Law didn't cover physical searches - but was amended to do so in 1995. The Clinton Administration assertion that they had an inherent right to warrantless physical searches of foreign intelligence did not violate FISA. Bush's warrantless electronic surveillance does.

MR. McCLELLAN: That the courts haven't upheld it.

No, the courts have not upheld this authority in the past. The "document" that Scotty is referring too is certainly the 40-page DOJ defense of the extra-FISA program. That document notes the Hamdi case where the court found that an American Citizen could be held as an "Enemy Combatant". It said nothing about surveillance, and further the court insisted on judicial review of the case prior to the designation being assigned to that prisoner. Transfering the rules in Hamdi to the NSA situation would clearly indicate that judicial review and a warrant are still required before subjecting American citizens to the same treatment as foreign terrorist targets.

One of the other cases mentioned by the DOJ, Youngstown v Sawyer involved President Truman taking control of the nations steel mills in order to prevent a strikes in the midst of the Korean War. The court held that the President did not have that power under Article II of the Constitution and his "Command in Chief" duties. The DOJ, bizarrely, argues the reverse. I'm a layman, not a lawyer and I could figure this out, as apparently has David Gregory, what's Scotty's excuse?

Q My question is, instead of spending time trying to fine-tune the rhetoric over what you want to call this program for political purposes, why not seek to amend FISA so that it can better suit your purposes, which is another thing the previous administration did when it wasn't considered to be agile enough? So why not, if you want the program to be more responsive, to be more agile, why not seek to amend FISA?

Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me. If you need this authority, why not ask for it? What was the Patriot Act all about anyway?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's look at a practical example. Do you expect our commanders, in a time of war, to go to a court while they're trying to surveil the enemy? I don't think so. This is a time of war. This is about wartime surveillance of the enemy. That's what this is about. And we don't ask our commanders to go to the court and ask for approval while they're trying to gain intelligence on the enemy. So I think that's a real practical term to look at it in when you're talking about this issue, because that's what this is about.

Well, gee - do you expect that the "enemy" just might sometimes include the American people? If yes, and you assert that we are now doing law enforcement via the Military you have a problem with the Posse Comitatus Act now don't you? (NSA is a part of DOD btw)

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

The PCA generally prohibits U.S. military personnel from direct participation in law enforcement activities. Some of those law enforcement activities would include interdicting vehicles, vessels, and aircraft; conducting surveillance, searches, pursuit and seizures; or making arrests on behalf of civilian law enforcement authorities. Prohibiting direct military involvement in law enforcement is in keeping with long-standing U.S. law and policy limiting the military's role in domestic affairs.

And if the Military is not doing law enforcement, then basically - we are under Martial Law. But then that's exactly what these guys are really thinking isn't it - with their Signing Statements and all. It doesn't matter what the law is if the President simply chooses to ignore the law and make up a quasi-Constitutional Justification that is in direct contradiction to "previous administrations and the courts".

Q There's no way to amend --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, let me back up, because I talked about this the last couple days. I mean, it's a very good question and an important question. FISA is an important tool. We use it. General Hayden talked about that. When we were briefing members of Congress over the course of the last few years -

No, you briefed the "Gang of Eight" and they had no advisory capacity nor could they share the information with anyone else, including their own staff due to security. The Congressional Research Service has noted that failing to notify all of Congress (not just the Gang of Eight) may have broken the law.

MCCLENNAN - I think it was more recently, over, maybe, the last couple years -- I think the Attorney General talked about it -- we talked with congressional leaders, bipartisan congressional leaders, about this very issue: Should we go and get legislation that would reflect the authority the President already has?

Why not? Particularly since FISA is currently the sole and exclusive controlling legal authorization for Foreign (International) Surveilance under Under 18 USC § 2511?

MCCLENNAN - cllAnd those leaders felt that it could compromise our national security interest and this program if we were to go and get legislation passed. Because we don't want to let the enemy know about our play book, and the more you talk about this program, the more potential it has to harm our national security interest. That's why we don't get into talking about the operational aspects about it.

Oh, so you think Al-Qaeda is out there reading the Congressional Record, becoming versed in U.S. Federal Law and would like stop calling the U.S. if they knew you might be listening in? Yeah, right. Logic dictates that they've long ago adapted to the possibility of NSA phone taps on "international" calls and are using code-words and phrases to mask what's really going on. Why stop doing that when calling the U.S.?

Btw, the FISA court is already Secret - so why are you expecting al-Qaeda to get your "play book" and know who we're tapping, when and where? Roving Wiretaps were approved under the Clinton Administration in 1995 weren't they?

MCCLENNAN: But it is important for the American people to understand exactly what this program is and how limited it is and what its purpose is. There's been some misrepresentations. Now, with that said, as I pointed out, we work very closely with Congress. We'll continue to work closely with Congress as we move forward. But the President has the authority and the responsibility to do what he's doing and he's going to keep doing it.

You'll work closely with Congress,eh? Well it seems they don't have the security clearance to even listen to a whistleblower like Russell Tice, and they won't even share information about Katrina which isn't classified in any way shape or form. Tell us another one, Scotty...


Vyan