Skip to main content

Thanks to Lurks a Lot for starting the liveblog on this hearing.  The Senate Judiciary Committee is always better than any Committee in the House so hopefully this will be an interesting hearing.

It's McConnell redux on the Hill today, this time with SJC.  I'm wondering if anyone will pursue McConnell's "selective declassification" from previous hearings as summarized in  drational's diary from yesterday.

There's no Mothership so PLEASE RECOMMEND THIS DIARY

You can listen here:
C-Span 3
SJC Website with link

Liveblog I found here.

Today's cast of characters:

PANEL I:

The Honorable J. Michael McConnell
Director of National Intelligence
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Washington, DC

PANEL II:

James A. Baker
Lecturer on Law
Harvard Law School
Formerly
Counsel for Intelligence Policy, Department of Justice
Washington, DC

James X. Dempsey
Policy Director
Center for Democracy and Technology
San Francisco, CA

Suzanne E. Spaulding
Principal
Bingham Consulting Group
Washington, DC

Bryan Cunningham
Principal
Morgan & Cunningham LLC
Greenwood Village, CO

PLEASE -- NO PICTURES -- THEY SLOW DOWN THE TOOBZ FOR THOSE ON DIALUP

Call for volunteers.  Please volunteer after the second comment.  Your livebloggers for today, thus far are:

  1. lurks a lot
  1. gchaucer2 (you are here)
  1. MKinTN

4.

5.

Originally posted to gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:10 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Howdy folks. (12+ / 0-)

    Transcripts under this comment.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:03:22 AM PDT

    •  Please RECOMMEND this diary! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OneCrankyDom, KatHart, gchaucer2

      ...and now, back to your transcripts!

    •  Whitehouse.. (9+ / 0-)

      W: Issue of incidental intercepts. As sessions pointed out, this happens all the time. I've done this as a lawyer...when this takes place in a title 3 contexts, the restrictions on what is overheard is protected by minimization procedures. Just the same way when you are tageting someone overseas, that is also protected by minimization procedures. Differentes, in domestic context is the enforcement procedures. Domestic agencies enforce this, but also the court who issed original warrant. That does not follow into the foreign targeting situation. If we were to make an equivalent role for FISA, it would require: 1) approval of minimization procedures and 2) a role in mkaing sure that procedures are adhered to. Would you be willing to do that?

      M: You have just introduced complexity I would have to look at. When talking about a foreign threat to the country, you may put the court in a position to determine in advance what intelligence could be conducted.

      W: That is not my intention. My intention is that if there was a renegade sement (like NSLs) where rules were not being followed, it would be good to know that a court was involved in looking into it.

      M: Happy to sit down and look at language - with time - and understand what are the intended and unintended consequences.

    •  Kyle (8+ / 0-)

      K: You have made the point that intel collection at issue is vital to natl security and that americans' rights are not being violated. But from questions, this would seem complicated to the average person. Please explain two things:  1-why collection is not suitable to ususal court procedures to criminal suspects and 2-why that is not constitutionally necessary in any event.

      M: (now reads from the script Chency provided him...)

    •  Spector: (6+ / 0-)

      S: My view is that there ought to be a determination about probable causee by FISA. Hatch say there are only 50-55 a year, so it can't be an administrative burden. Would you object to giving FISA court authoririty to authorize targeting of US persons overseas?

      M: I would have personal objection, but we have to look for unintended consequences. The difference would be authority going from AG to FISA. There are reasons that it was set up as is, but we can examine in closed-seession.

      S: Are you saying there are reason to invest in AG the determination of probable cause?

      M: Yes. Let me separate US citizen from US person. Citizen is easy. Person may make a situation where full impace you should be aware.

      S: It is US person where you have to have a warrant for targeting in US. If classification is US person what difference does it make if it is un US or out.

      M: US citizen should no give up rights in US or out. But US person may not be a foreign citizen.

      S: I don't see the distinction to according the same degree of privacy to US person inside or outside th US. But we can reserve judgment until we discuss it in closed session.  With respect to FISA and targeting of people outisde US, the objection has been made by you and amin that there is insufficient flexibilty to go before FISA, but you acknowledge that FISA should, at a minimum, review procedures.

      M: Foreign person located overseas.

      S: You need flexibility to do that without prior approval of FISA because of numebrs?

      M: Yes, it is dynamic. Large numbers. Fast changing.

      Why can't you handle that administratively to submit aplications to FISA?

      F: First, it is extending probable cuasee standard to foreigner overseas. To maintian flexibility of intel community,m why insert that as standard?

      It may be a burden, but that is not the determinamtn as to whetherr you should have the burdern. The question is thweth it is unreasonable and precludes you from doing your job,

      It is unreasonable on te face of it and precludes us from doing oyr job.

      Why? Numebrs?

      Yes, numbers and dynamic nature.

      What does dynamis mean?

      Rapid. Faced-paced.

      Okay.

      Foreign intell involves foreigners. Not Americans. We take great pains to target nut someimtes we get it wrong. Tiring system 1-5. When US forces were asked to engage, it was almost always in tiered areas wer were not covering. Situations that pop up taht you have to be responsive you have to undersnt who threats and, what are weapons, etc

      you are sying you have to respopnd immediately?

      yes

      Have you gone back to FISA for proceudres you are using to target foreign persons overseas,.

      yes, they are reviewing thtem now,

      Would it be too burdemson to ask you to submit every three months.

      They would not change, but it would not be burdensom

      Okay

      But if we were in a position where the court had to rule before we would act, it would not be fast enough.

      S: I am not talking about specifics, just the procedures. But wouldn't it be worthwhile to also show the reults and value of hte procedures when you go back?

      M: I would object to that because it would insert FISA who is not prepared to make judgements

      S: Are they any less prepared for that than to judge targeting of US person in the US?

      M: The role of targeting in the US is to protect US citizens. They would have the facts and could do research to make an informed decision. In a foreign context, they could not keep up with the thouaands of data. Somethins taht seems inncousou may turn out to be the most important thing we are chasing.

      S: I get your point about dynamics. But I am in a different poisition. Going back to court and saying, we want to continue this and this is what we have accomplished. We aren't saying you can't do it, but you are reaching some US persons overseas. Even with elaborate minimization, there would be a good basis for court to make sure it is still worth it.

      M: The reason I would object is that at the 99.9999% level it is foreign. The courts would be injecting ambiguity and I'm not sure how it would come out. To have the court in a position to say that what you have or have not collected is or is not of intel value is not appropriate.

      S: I am not satisfied but we have to move on.

    •  Leahy: (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      roses, cfk, dotsright, lurks a lot, MKinTN

      L: You have refered to minimization procedures and those of us here from the beginning of the law are aware. Under PAA, the minimzed data is not being destroyed, they are being kept, isn't that right?

      M: No, the info is removed from database.

      L: So minimized communications are not being maintained in database?

      M: No. This is 4th hearing on subject. I talk about data that you may not know is there...

      L: Under PAA FISA has no role in oversight of minimziation.

      M: It does, anytime a warrant is involved the courst would have minimization within the info,

      L: Are they shown minimization procudures?

      M:  yes.

      L: I'll give you some time to review your testimony...

      M: Thank you

      L: As you know, the state of Vermont and other states are seeking to investigate telecom carriers for disclosing data to NSA. There is a suit in 9th circuit that would be dismissed if carreiers get immunity. This committee has issued sobpeones seeking info, W have received no documents, no justification for warranteless survillance. We are in the dark about legal justification, what data was collected and the cooperation of privcate sector. We have not been provided with legal justification. We are, however, being asked to provide laws to immunize everybody and wipe out cases. Total trust. I am not sure if you were presented with something like that that you would be eager to accept that. Do you have any onjections to have the congress see these documents? Legal documents upon which justification was based on either aclassified or unclassied basis.

      M: That is call from WH. My personal philosophy is that oevrsight is a good thing and engagingwith congress is what we should do. Judgement calls about priveledge. Constituttion says co-equal bodies. Lot of this is at constitutional level and I cannot solve that,

      L: As DNI - do you have any objection to legal memorandum being shared?

      M: My history starts in jan when I was nominated

      L: Obviously you have seen the documents

      M: I have not. I am trying to take where we are today and put it totally under the law. All of it. Nothing extreme.

      L: But you are here lobbying to have us wipe out these cases retroactively by legislation. Isn't that asking us to buy a pig in a poke?

      M: No. I object to the word lobbying. I am here because you invited me to testify.

      L: In july in some of your metting, you were "advocating" for..

      M: I have a responsibilty to make reccomendations for what we need to do our jobs. That is what I was doing.

      L: Are you conducting under PAA or otherswise physical searches of homes or businesses of Americans without warrants?

      That would not be the business that I represent. If that occurs it would be by FBI with a warrant.

      L: But you are not?

      M: I am not.

    •  James Baker (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      roses, cfk, dotsright, MKinTN

      Appearing in personal capacity, views are not mind and do not represent admin.

      FISA was enacted in 1978 and has been extremely provideive over the years. Including actionable intel. As a resul, FISA has proven valuable during wartime. In part by use of emergency procedures. We can discuss antotehr itme. In addition, IFSIA permits us to dessiminate with US govt nd to foreign partners. Can use data in criminal proceedings at discretion of AG. Everyone in system was aware that they were acting within the law and would not be subjected to lawsuits, etc.

      Intel community regarded FISA as a critical platform. FISA expanded underrstanidng of other intel groups. Before renewing or amending FISA, ask the intel community for full assessment of pre-Aug FISA.

      Points about original FISA. No means of collection were barred by 1978 statues. All modern forms of communication are allowed. Reas questions are not whether or how to modernize FISA are not technological in nature. Question is whether govt collection activityes comport with 4th admin. Factors: what is identify and location of person or persons whose communication are collected or reviews. Where? Who? Whose communication are intercepted in additions? What is identify of people who communication is being collected? With what degree of confidence can you answer these question.  Also...with collection procedures: who is decision maker? What level of predication is required prior to collection? What standard or review? How particular should approvals be? Specific or programatic? What are standard for minimization? How long can collection run prio to review? The lower the level of approval, the fast and more reasonably the intel community can start collection. The 4th amendment lies at the foundation of all these quesiton. When govt targets  person or people in US. When it acquires of listen to commun to which a US person is a party. Or when it scans data to determine who from and to whom it is directed.

    •  Dempsey (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      roses, cfk, dotsright, gchaucer2, MKinTN

      Debate has been about people in the US communicating with persons overseas. Intel community need speed and agility. It should not be required to get a warrant to target persons overseas. NSA can often not tell in real time who a foreigner overseas is communicating with and can't predict in advance if a target overseas wis going to communicate with a US person. We recognize these concerns, but it is certain that some % of activites of targets overseas will result in szquiring data of US citizens. How can we give intel the speed and agility it needs while protecting the rights of US citizens.

      I have heard good discussion and progress. My suggestions: Use plain english. Second: focus is on rights of Americans and require a particular couort order when a specific US person is targeted. Third, establish a procedure for FISA to review and approve procedures for targets abroad to ensure they are not US citizens. Not prior individualized warrant. But a look a the procedure to see how, generally, the targeting is done and review the minimization procedures in advance. Fourth: note, record procedure for determining if a target is a non-US person so that a court can determine if a US citizen has been involved in the collection to the extent that a warrant is required.

      This approach addresses concerns of admin but with supervision and oversight of FISA. Supervised flexibility.

    •  Feinstein (from I) (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      roses, gchaucer2, MKinTN

      F: I believe the FISA act since 1978 has been the exclusive legal means for conducting electronic surveillance. Do you beleive that FISA includes langauge that indicates it is the exclusive means of conducting surveillance in the US?

      M: I can't answer...here...

      F: I appreciate that, I just want to go on record...

      M: Closed doors...

      F: I just want a yes or no...

      M: I can't get involved in a dispute between legislative and executive branch. I can't solve the consitutional debate your question is addressing.

      F: Under the order Hatch mentioned, and we talked about previously, this applies anytime info on US person overseas and requires AG to obtain probable cause. Would you agree to putting this lanugage into statue?

      M: I would not object, but would want to examine it for unintended consequences.

      F: For subset dealing with surveillance in US, would you support moving this from AG to FISA?

      M: It is under FISA

      F: I have question about minimization.  Do these procedures prevent obtaining of info on US citizens?

      M: If recognized, the info is expunged.

      F: Do procedures require making the info anonmyous prior to dissemination?

      M: If possible.

      F: Is a warrant required if a US person becomes a person of interet?

      M: Yes...

      F: When pick-up is analyzed and a determination made that there is intell value, exactly what happens next?

      M: A report is written, the identity of US person listed at "US Person1, person2," etc

      F: What is warrant process?

      M: If for whatever reason Person1 or 2 becomes target of surveillance, we are required to get a warrant.

      F: Does that happen when the finding is from the analyst that info is important?

      M: That is where it happens.

      F: That is determined when analyst makes finding that there is intel value...?

      M: That is a way to phrase it. Use sleeper cell as example. Foreign terrorist calls in to US. At that point, info is flagged for the FBI to get a warrant. If a foreign target calls in to Hals pizza shop, data is expunged.

      F: Would you support a provision requiring govt to submit minimization procedure to FISA for review?

      M: They already have done that. I have no objection.

      F: If that were written into the law?

      M: Depending on phrasing, it could put us in position where we could not do foreign surv because we can't tell who that person was going to call before hand. If it was intrepreted that way, it would make things difficult. I can't recommend that we introduce ambiguity that would cause us to loose effectiveness. These people are planning in minutes/hours. Not long lead-times

      F: It is my position that any collection of info against US person abroad with minization process should be approved by court prior - you've agreed to that.

      M: You just mixed two things...

      F: How?

      M: You went from targeting US person abroad to minimization.

      F: The US person abroad is minimized..

      M: No, the US person abroad may be a dual-citized / agent of foreign power. Currently, we must provide probable cause for warrant.

      F: I'm not talking abotu that part. I am talking about an innocent US person abroad. How is that call minimized?

      M: Inadvertant collection?

      F: Yes. What is minimization process and how does it function. What happend with collection?

      M: You may not realize it is there, there is so much data. You would have to have a reason to look. If recognized as incidental, it is expunged. Procedures have been reviewed by FISA, I have no objection to looking again.

    •  Caron (from I) (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cfk, gchaucer2, MKinTN

      M: Determining "foreigness" is what you are talking about.  Can't tell who a foreign person will call ahead of time, some data must be minimized.

      C: Point is that you make a persuasive argument that an individual application to FISA for cause involving a foreign person would be too ornerous and ineffective. Congress is looking at it and suggesting that rather than the individual case, have the process be submitted to FISA. I don't believe we got it right in the last bill on approval of procedures. Do you have any suggestion for more involvement of FISA in proceudures?

      M: I have no objection to working out best possible solution. I would suggest to involve FISA in disucssion to get right balance. I would be happy to sit down and examine balance.

      C: That is a fair challenge. We have a few months before deadline and it would be useful to have a meetin of the minds to improve checks and blances of FISA process. Your attorneys suggestions would be a good start.

    •  Sessions (from I) (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cfk, gchaucer2, MKinTN

      summary:  Wah wah wah.

      S: In 1978. people were trying to correct abuses. But they created a wall between foreign and domestic intelligence and we corrected that. Also in 1978, through good intentions. they prohibited officers from undertaking operations with people with bad records. The intel community was concerned, but congress did not listen. After 9/11 that idea was examined and changed. The danger is that good intentions create laws that inhibit the legitimate abiliytt of hte nation to proteect itself.

      S: Now, having had one or 2 wiretaps, I know something abotu this. You are not a lawyers, but you are doing well as a non-lawyer. When you obtain a wirtap on a US citizen through a court order at great effort, then you listen to who the person talks to. Once you have a lawful intercept, you listen to who they call.  Like wise when you have a lawful intercept on a foreign person, you listen to whom they call. If they happen to call someone in the US, you listen to that conversation. I don't see that fundamentally it is different from the principle of the lawful wiretap here. You listen to people who talk. If it appears that hte converstaion is un-related to terrorism, you take steps to minimize the conversation. How?

      M: It is expunged from the database.

      S: Isn't that dangerous that they were using code? And you take even the name out of the system?

      M: Yes, there would be some risk.

      S: But in an effort to avoid criticism you ahve gone to the exyent to minimize the call y removing the name from the system. If a person has been identified as a perons associated with a terrorist camp in Afhanistan and call someon inf hte us about a meal or a television. Do you still minimize that

      M: Yes, but it would be a judgement call. A discussion abotu a meal could be intrepreted as a planning call. One, you would report that call. Two, if the perons was in the US you would get a warrant and find out if there was a connection to terrorism.

      S: I'd like to give you a chance to explain again about your previous testimony...

      F: The significance of the progrma 50% or more of the total information to address this threat. My answer was we were reduced by 2/3 in our capabilities. Probably cause takes time, working them off in the Spring and we fell further and further behind over the summer. Lots of potential targets. Single person can use multiple avenues of communication. Second, the people who know this the best are the ones that have to stop and complete the process.

      S: Probably cause warrant takes over a hundred pages of facts and figures.  

    •  Feingold (from I) (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      roses, cfk, gchaucer2, MKinTN

      F: We still don't know what the activites that you are requesting be exempted...

      M: You should have the information.

      F: You havent' provided us with executive orders, etc.

      M: As I understand there is a negotioton between chairman and WH, but I don't control the process.

      Your recomendation was what?

      We need to provide appropriate level of oversight?

      Does that include DOJ records?

      I can't say.

      F: That is critical. As a general matter, does the private sector liagb
      Do you think there is a role for private sector laibility to ensure privace?

      M: I believe the process should be subjected to the appripriate review to ensure privacy.

      F: You are willing to look at changes in language but are concenred about unintended consequences. I take your point, but want to make sure that Congress does not also allow unintended activiteis. PSS langaugae" concerning" people outside US. Why was "concerning" useed and why should we re-authorization of this broad word?

      M: I am not sure why this word was used. Lets get language we can agree to and examine responsibiliites to get to the right langaugea.

      F: We are not talking about a proposal - this is a law of the land. This is the problem with the rush and push to get this bill passed. This is same admin that claimed that AUMF applied to wiretapping without warrants and did so for years in secret. When admin says trust us, public and congress have every right to be skeptical. I appreciate you have acknowledged concerns with wording.  You have stated that reverse targeting is a violation of 4th admin and criminal. Reverse targeting can be covered by targeting a foreign person overseas that may be communicating with a US person that you would really like to target.

      M: We have to have a warrant to target a US person. If you engage in reverse targeting, it unlawful.

      F: Last thurs, you said you did not know how much person info is in database. But you could say how much info is dessiminated. Can you also do that with new authorities?

      M: Yes, but I don't know when.

      F: Days? Weeks?

      M: I'd say weeks,

      F: You said that bulk collection of all data from overseas would be desirable but not possible. But that bulk collection of US persons is not needed. Is bulk collection of all overseas people authorized?

      M: Yes, theortically, if it were possible.

      Leahy:  Retroactive immunity takes away right of people who have spent time, money on suits. Is this an illegal "taking"?

      M: I don't know that that means.

      L: If we retroactively take away someone's right to a suit...in environmental law, it is terrible but in this case it does not seem to be...I was just wondering if your lawyers had considered this.

  •  Sandbox begins here. (6+ / 0-)

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:03:40 AM PDT

  •  McConnell Just gave up "Concerning" (6+ / 0-)

    405b is the bad paragraph allowing acquisitions on anyone "concerned" with foreign intelligence.

  •  Yeehaw! Whitehouse is up next! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drational, gchaucer2

    "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." ~ Robert Graves, "I, Claudius"

    by lurks a lot on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:09:39 AM PDT

  •  Wow! Excellent question (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cfk, dotsright, lurks a lot, MKinTN

    by Leahy:  If you take away the right to sue after folks have invested $$ is it a takings?  McConnell has no clue what he's talking about.  Leahy tells him to ask his lawyers.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:11:23 AM PDT

  •  I have a friend in England (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenskeeper, lurks a lot

    on business now -- hope he doesn't call for both our sakes.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:12:41 AM PDT

  •  Whitehouse for next Atty Gen. ! nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KatHart, gchaucer2, MKinTN

    -8.63 -7.28 We all have to be concerned about terrorism, but you will never end terrorism by terrorizing others.~Martin Luther King III

    by OneCrankyDom on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:17:27 AM PDT

  •  TexasLiz (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotsright, MKinTN

    is our excellent transcriber -- she's up top so give her some mojo.

    OneCrankyDom gives great detail in the sandbox.  So give him some mojo also.  

    Double coverage!

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:19:54 AM PDT

  •  Jon Kyl: American people too dumb to get PAA (6+ / 0-)

    Director Mcconnell, how would you scare the American people into giving up all their constitutional rights?

  •  How many calls (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cfk, KatHart, dotsright, lurks a lot, MKinTN

    to pizza parlors do you guess come from Iraq, Iran and Pakistan?  Delivery charges must be a bitch.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:25:31 AM PDT

  •  Lahey...bamm! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OneCrankyDom, KatHart

    "Don't let the might of the Christian right, fuck it all up, for you and the rest of the world!" Roger Waters - Leaving Beirut

    by Ex Real Republican on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:31:24 AM PDT

  •  Buy a "Pig in a Polk" !!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OneCrankyDom, gchaucer2, MKinTN

    Sounds kind of like that to me.

    The first thing lost in war is truth.

    by KatHart on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:34:18 AM PDT

  •  McConnell: I know nothing of what went on.... (6+ / 0-)

    ...before I got this job.  WTF?

    Leahy: "Isn't this like trying us to buy a pig in a poke?"  HA!  Gotta love that guy!  

    "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." ~ Robert Graves, "I, Claudius"

    by lurks a lot on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:34:20 AM PDT

  •  Are you conducting physical searches of american (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cfk, KatHart, lurks a lot, gchaucer2, MKinTN

    homes with out a warrent under PAA or any other statute?

    MCC:  That would be the aegis of the FBI.

    Leahy, who is in the new batman movie and a huge comic book fan:  YOU are not doing that.

    MCC:  No.

    So he personally isn't physically searching american homes without warrants.  That's nice.  How about the people under him?  You can't ask vague questions like that.  You're a lawyer leahy, you know better!

  •  McConnell just made a distinction between (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cfk, gchaucer2

    "US citizen" and "US person" - ???

    Apparently "US citizens" have more rights than "US persons" in McConnell's world, "US person" could include foreigners, skeery terraists.

    "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." ~ Robert Graves, "I, Claudius"

    by lurks a lot on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:38:49 AM PDT

  •  McConnell just said that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lurks a lot, Rumarhazzit

    the FISA court is not prepared or trained for foreign context warrants -- WTF?

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:44:31 AM PDT

  •  McConnel thinks the FISA court is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lurks a lot, gchaucer2

    stupip!

    "What were you thinking? Why didn't you act? Didn't you care?" -Al Gore

    by Rumarhazzit on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:45:15 AM PDT

  •  Jeebus, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lurks a lot, Rumarhazzit

    example of movement of nuclear material from a foreign port on a foreign flagged ship -- what to do?  Ummm, how do they figure that one out since we don't even have adequate surveilance equipment for nuclear materials coming into our ports?  Oy!

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:46:09 AM PDT

  •  on my lunch break, anything stupendous to report? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2

    "What were you thinking? Why didn't you act? Didn't you care?" -Al Gore

    by Rumarhazzit on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:47:10 AM PDT

  •  Is McC a snake, stupid, or both? (6+ / 0-)

    Specter asks if it would be a problem for McC to submit procedures for review every 3 months.  McC's response conflates procedure and individual warrant activity (which Specter rightly pointed out and corrected).  This isn't the first time that McC has made the issue more confusing that imo it needs to be.  Does he not listen to the question and just give whatever answer pops out (I've noticed that he has a habit of cutting people off), or is he intentionally making things more complicated, or is it just all mixed up in his own mind?

    "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." ~ Robert Graves, "I, Claudius"

    by lurks a lot on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:47:51 AM PDT

  •  Next panel coming up. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cfk, Rumarhazzit

    Feingold is taking the chair for Leahy.  See above in diary after fold for panel members.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:49:24 AM PDT

  •  Period break - Go Feingold! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2
  •  Must be lunchtime for Leahy. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2

    Feingold swears in second panel.

    "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." ~ Robert Graves, "I, Claudius"

    by lurks a lot on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:50:21 AM PDT

  •  James A. Baker (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cfk, lurks a lot, Rumarhazzit, MKinTN

    first panelist -- giving an excellent precis re: questions to ask about the FISA program.  Too bad he wasn't up before McConnell so that the committee could ask these questions.

    Fourth Amendment lays at the foundation of everything.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:56:58 AM PDT

  •  James Baker (not the Bush crony) opening (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cfk, gchaucer2, Rumarhazzit, MKinTN

    This guy seems to have a good grasp of what's going on, emphasizes that the 4th amendment is at the heart of the decisions that are made wrt surveillance.  I hope that his opening statement text will be posted later on the SJC website.

    "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." ~ Robert Graves, "I, Claudius"

    by lurks a lot on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:58:08 AM PDT

  •  James X. Dempsey (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rumarhazzit, MKinTN

    Wow, only three Senators left on the Committee?  Feingold, Whitehouse and Specter.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 08:58:34 AM PDT

  •  what does "reasonably believed to be engaged in" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2, MKinTN

    mean? Who determines that?

    "What were you thinking? Why didn't you act? Didn't you care?" -Al Gore

    by Rumarhazzit on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:00:37 AM PDT

  •  Dempsey (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KatHart, lurks a lot, Rumarhazzit, MKinTN

    use freaking plain English in the Act.  McConnell said he was confused.  Hmmm, good slam at Congress because they are responsible for most of these problems.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:01:23 AM PDT

  •  Dempsey: "Use plain language" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cfk, KatHart, MKinTN

    Not the cockamamie bs in the PAA.  Notes that McConnell can't even explain/remember what it means.

    Get FISA to review and approve (a "real" review vs. the PAA claptrap) procedures to protect rights of Americans wrt surveillance, give court the authority to oversee how minimization procedures are applied.

    "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." ~ Robert Graves, "I, Claudius"

    by lurks a lot on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:02:59 AM PDT

  •  O.k. now we have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KatHart, lurks a lot

    two folks who have a problem with the Administration's requests for un-Constitutional spying.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:04:14 AM PDT

  •  Bryan Cunningham. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rumarhazzit

    Served 6 years under Clinton and two under Chimpy.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:05:05 AM PDT

  •  "incidental collection" means spying on Americans (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Colossus, gchaucer2

    strictly by accident, mind you. Yea, right....

    "What were you thinking? Why didn't you act? Didn't you care?" -Al Gore

    by Rumarhazzit on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:07:13 AM PDT

  •  Suzanne Spawlding up. (0+ / 0-)

    Worked on Intelligence stuff in Congress and WH for twenty years.  Worked with Specter.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:10:30 AM PDT

  •  Concerned that new (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Colossus, cfk, Rumarhazzit

    FISA provides overly broad authority without adequate statutory protections of American's rights.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:11:54 AM PDT

  •  Spaulding painting Bush to be a liar... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Colossus, cfk, gchaucer2

    "anytime you hear about spying on Americans, that requires a warrant." ummm, NO!

    "What were you thinking? Why didn't you act? Didn't you care?" -Al Gore

    by Rumarhazzit on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:13:35 AM PDT

  •  Wow, did anyone in Congress (3+ / 0-)

    talk to these folks before they threw away our 4th amendment rights in August.  The Dems should be ashamed of themselves.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:14:08 AM PDT

  •  Spaulding: (5+ / 0-)
    • Don't change definitions in midstream, especially "electronic surveillance".  Allows unilateral changes by Executive branch.
    • "not withstanding any other law...." should be a red flag.  Allows intel/Exec to run roughshod over all other more stringent laws.  Changes to FISA should be the minimum necessary to fix the problem.
    • Role of FISA judges should not be minimized.
    • Congress should seek stronger commitment from Exec that it will abide by the law.

    Huh.  Spaulding used to work for Specter, so I thought maybe she'd be an Admin shill.  guess not!

    "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out." ~ Robert Graves, "I, Claudius"

    by lurks a lot on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:15:55 AM PDT

  •  Dempsey, "Protect America Act of dubious (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Colossus, gchaucer2

    Constitutionality."

    "What were you thinking? Why didn't you act? Didn't you care?" -Al Gore

    by Rumarhazzit on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:18:15 AM PDT

  •  Spaulding, "Would be very damaging to (7+ / 0-)

    retroavtively pass legislation to protect corporations asked to do unlawful things.."
    Right on!

    "What were you thinking? Why didn't you act? Didn't you care?" -Al Gore

    by Rumarhazzit on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:20:14 AM PDT

  •  Spaulding, "The fourth amendment continues (5+ / 0-)

    to protect people when they're overseas..."

    "What were you thinking? Why didn't you act? Didn't you care?" -Al Gore

    by Rumarhazzit on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:22:14 AM PDT

  •  Down to 28th on recent list (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2, Rumarhazzit

    Shall I post part III now?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site