There are those that believe that, as a matter of prudent politicking, the best way to kill a negative news story is to admit that you did what you are accused of. That is exactly what President Bush did this past weekend when he admitted in a nationally televised address that he had authorized repeatedly a secret National Security Agency (NSA) eavesdropping program that monitored communications originating in the United States (i.e., domestic spying).
One question that has crossed many people's minds at this point in the debate is "why has the President so quickly admitted ordering an agency to circumvent the Constitution?"
I personally believe that the answer is this: he's hiding something - he wants to quickly own up, let the debate rage and then die down, and hope that other activities are not uncovered.
One of those "other activities" may have been the creation of new domestic intelligence agency, in secret.
More below the fold...
Here is what we know to this point: We know that he ordered secret domestic eavesdropping repeatedly since October 2001. We also know that the Foreign Intelligence Services Act already had provisions that allowed such wiretaps in a way that did not violate the 4th Amendment. We also know,
as I discussed in this diary yesterday, that in the Fall of 2002, a three-member FISA review court gave the Department of Justice exactly what they wanted: wide latitude in conduction secret wiretaps, and a "tearing down" of the legal wall separating prosectors investigating crimes and intelligence gatherers.
But, a simple question has not been asked or answered to this point regarding Bush's authorization of NSA eavesdropping: what exactly is being done with the gathered information?
The NSA itself is primarily an intelligence-gathering agency, and its analysis often involves breaking codes. It does not, as far as I know (and the agency is quite secretive), have any field operatives or investigators, as the CIA and FBI do.
So, after the wiretaps were set up, and information and recordings were gathered...where did they go? What was done with the information?
These questions were likely answered by the Administration back in 2002 or 2003. In November of 2002, it was reported by the Washington Post that "President Bush's top national security advisers have begun discussing the creation of a new, domestic intelligence agency that would take over responsibility for counterterrorism spying and analysis from the FBI, according to U.S. government officials and intelligence experts."
The concern was "that the FBI has been unable to transform itself from a law enforcement agency into an intelligence-gathering unit able to detect and thwart terrorist plans in the United States." The FBI disputed this assertion, and Director Robert Mueller [not relation to me!] fought tooth and nail to stop the creation of a new domestic spying agency.
But it is unclear whether the concept was ever "killed." In fact, the WaPo noted that the Administration event sent Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge to London for a briefing on the workings of MI5, which conducts domestic spying in the UK. Additionally, the concept had big public supporters, such as Elder Bush former official George Terwilliger, who advocated "creating a domestic intelligence agency that would combine FBI counterterror efforts with CIA and military operations. Keeping foreign and domestic terrorism intelligence operations separate is an 'outdated notion,' he said. 'Somebody needs to have ownership of the problem on a government-wide basis.'"
In addition, the WaPo noted that the then-proposed Department of Homeland Security would not end the debate, as
it "would include a new analysis division that would receive and analyze terrorism-related reports from the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies. But the new department would not collect intelligence data on its own and would not have access to original information except in special circumstances, administration officials have said."
President Bush and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft were also prevented by Congress at the beginning of 2003 from gaining new, wide powers to wage their war. As was noted in AlterNet on April 2, 2003, a draft version of PATRIOT Act II contained a number of controversial provisions that were quickly rejected by members of both parties, such as:
- Americans could have their citizenship revoked, if found to have contributed "material support" to organizations deemed by the government, even retroactively, to be "terrorist."
- Legal permanent residents could be deported instantaneously, without a criminal charge or even evidence, if the Attorney General considers them a threat to national security. If they commit minor, non-terrorist offenses, they can still be booted out, without so much as a day in court, because the law would exempt habeas corpus review in some cases.
- The government would be instructed to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities." Samples could be collected without a court order; one need only be suspected of wrongdoing by a law enforcement officer. Those refusing the cheek-swab could be fined $200,000 and jailed for a year.
- Authorities could wiretap anybody for 15 days, and snoop on anyone's Internet usage (including chat and email), all without obtaining a warrant.
- The government would be specifically instructed not to release any information about detainees held on suspicion of terrorist activities, until they are actually charged with a crime.
- Businesses that rat on their customers to the Feds -- even if the information violates privacy agreements, or is, in fact, dead wrong -- would be granted immunity.
- Police officers carrying out illegal searches would also be granted legal immunity if they were just carrying out orders.
- Federal "consent decrees" limiting local law enforcement agencies' abilities to spy on citizens in their jurisdiction would be rolled back.
- American citizens could be subject to secret surveillance by their own government on behalf of foreign countries, including dictatorships.
- The death penalty would be expanded to cover 15 new offenses.
- And many of PATRIOT I's "sunset provisions" -- stipulating that the expanded new enforcement powers would be rescinded in 2005 -- would be erased from the books, cementing Ashcroft's rushed legislation in the law books.
So, to sum up, in 2002/2003 President Bush had the following before him: a successful breaking down of the prosecutor/intelligence gatherer "wall," a proposal to create a new domestic intelligence agency, an FBI resistant to the entire concept, concerns that the FBI was not up to the job in the first place, and a rejection by Congress of his efforts to gain new, wide law enforcment and spying powers via legislation.
We already have seen in this past week's revelations regarding the NSA intercepts that Bush is willing to create by secret order whole programs that are likely illegal. It seems very possible to me, considering that the idea had been discussed, and never resolved, that the President may have secretly created an entire domestic spying agency that has been receiving intelligence from the NSA and others.
This would certainly explain why the Administration has been so eager to get out in front of this story, and why they (and their apologists) are working so hard to denounce the MSM and those that question the President's actions as "harming the GWOT." Certainly, any sort of revelation that a domestic intelligence agency was created without the knowledge of Congress or the American people, would be an incredible outrage.
UPDATE thanks to a helpful link from Viktor:
From Viktor's comment below, I found this /WaPo/ article: "New espionage branch delving into CIA territory"
Everyone should read that article - it describes how "Pentagon officials...established *the Strategic Support Branch* using 'reprogrammed' funds, without explicit congressional authority or appropriation."
According to the WaPo, "Rumsfeld's efforts, launched in October 2001, address two widely shared goals. One is to give combat forces, such as those fighting the insurgency in Iraq, more and better information about their immediate enemy. The other is to find new tools to penetrate and destroy the shadowy organizations, such as al Qaeda, that pose global threats to U.S. interests in conflicts with little resemblance to conventional war."
Two things to take from that passage and the article as whole:
1) The timing matches the reported period when Bush first began authorized the NSA to begin its eavesdropping in the U.S.
2) The activities of Rummy's SSB match the mission of Britain's MI6.
So...if the Administration set up a MI6-like organization without Congressional authority appropriation, it now seems even more likely that they also set up a parallel MI5 like organization, as well - and that they are trying to protect the secrecy of its existence as best they can.