 = |
You can take him! |
 |
Posted on 01/13/2006 9:08:20 AM PST by Howlin
----excerpt-------
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Up next, we‘ll get some reaction to Tice‘s allegations from former Attorney General Ed Meese. He‘s coming here. You‘re watching HARDBALL only on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. From the NSA‘s secret spying to the CIA leak probe and the bribery on Capitol Hill, there‘s no shortage of legal questions and criminal matters facing Washington lately. But just how many people have broken the law?
We‘re joined by a man who knows, former Attorney General Ed Meese. He‘s author of the “Heritage Guide to the Constitution,” a very impressive volume, sir. Thank you.
Let me ask you, when you were A.G., the NSA—did it have this latitude to surveil us, Americans?
ED MEESE, REAGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, the ability to do that inherently in the Constitution was there, but it wasn‘t necessary to use at the time, except in certain instances, and at that time there was an intercept program in certain categories. It was very highly classified, but it was—it was used at the time and properly so.
MATTHEWS: Can you ...
(CROSSTALK)
MEESE: It‘s not really spying on Americans, it‘s intercepting international communications dealing with terrorists at the present time, or enemies in those days, in which, on occasion, some—one of the links would be to telephones within the United States, but it‘s not wiretapping. It‘s not bugging. The news media is almost totally getting it wrong.
MATTHEWS: But why—what‘s the difference if I‘m on the phone with somebody in Saudi Arabia and I‘m being tapped?
MEESE: Well you‘re not being tapped. The tapping is a particular technique of connecting into the wires of a particular phone or into—plugging into a particular wireless phone. This is intercepting communications that are going overseas. There‘s a lot of technology to it that I can‘t go into right now.
MATTHEWS: But it‘s still eavesdropping, isn‘t it?
MEESE: It is surveillance. It‘s surveillance, under certain circumstances and it‘s justifiable in a wartime situation or in—when you‘re dealing with enemies of the country.
MATTHEWS: How do you police an administration so that it only surveils, it only intercepts phone messages, e-mails that are clearly in that category you describe, which is contacts with the enemy?
MEESE: You have all kinds of protections. You have inspector general operations within the National Security Agency that will look at this stuff. There are all kinds of protocols to protect against and minimize any possible people who should not be in this category.
Besides that, the president has gone out of his way to legitimatize this by meeting with Congress, by letting the committees of Congress know about it, the intelligence committees, the leadership of the Congress.
He‘s gone out of his way to get legal advice from the Department of Justice, from the legal counsel for the National Security Agency, so I think the president has really done everything possible to handle this in the proper way.
MATTHEWS: But he hasn‘t obeyed the law, has he?
MEESE: He has obeyed the law.
MATTHEWS: The law says he has to get court approval by this special court, FISA, and he didn‘t do it.
MEESE: No, it doesn‘t say that. The law says that the FISA process is a vehicle available to the president, but it doesn‘t say it‘s the only vehicle. Even the FISA court has admitted that, and there‘s ample case law to precedent ...
MATTHEWS: What checks his power then, the president‘s to do it? How does—is there somebody there saying Mr. President, you cannot bug that person, you cannot intercept that person‘s phone messages.
MEESE: There is a—there are—as I say, there are protocols within NSA that would prohibit it. There‘s an inspector general in the NSA that checks on this to make sure they are following it. It‘s like many other things, just like in wiretaps, that are legitimatized by a court order.
Once you get the wiretap warrant, it‘s up to the individuals and the procedures within the FBI, for example, to make sure that they‘re following the warrant in the proper way.
MATTHEWS: Well, you know, you mentioned the fact that the president notified the Congress. He notified the intelligence committees, and when he did so, the ranking Democrat on Senate Intelligence Committee wrote a letter—because he was told he couldn‘t tell his staff about it. So Jay Rockefeller wrote down in a letter complaining about it. That didn‘t do any good.
MEESE: No, he didn‘t write a letter complaining about it. He wrote a very short note saying he had some questions about this and then he didn‘t follow up on it. I think it was kind of one of those CYA letters to tell you the truth.
MATTHEWS: You don‘t think he was condemning the program at all?
MEESE: I don‘t think he was condemning the program, because if he had, he should have followed up. He wrote this to the vice president, if I remember correctly.
MATTHEWS: Right.
MEESE: He should have followed up with the vice president to explain what those questions were and to get an answer. There‘s no reason why he couldn‘t have.
MATTHEWS: So you—as your confidence in this administration not breaking the rules or is it a confidence you have in the government processes?
MEESE: I have a confidence in both, this administration because the president is a very honest man of great integrity. I also have a great belief that the proper rules are in place to prevent improper use of this particular technique.
I also understand the necessity of doing this when we‘re dealing with terrorists. There is some reasons why you can‘t get a warrant, an authorization by the FISA court in certain circumstances. That‘s what led the president to give the direction. He is—personally, White House people, including the president, are monitoring it; that‘s why these authorizations are only good for 45 days or thereabouts. So...
MATTHEWS: Maybe I have more suspicion about misuse of authority, but I do remember that we spent a lot of time over the last several months looking at people in the administration who may or may not have used their authority to leak the identity of a CIA agent.
MEESE: Well, now, you know, that‘s a very good topic. Much more serious violation of security laws was made by “The New York Times” in revealing this and by the person who revealed this to “The New York Times” than ever happened in the Plame case that you‘re talking about. As a matter of fact, in that case, there was no violation of law in all probability.
MATTHEWS: Well, you‘re right. It‘s not been established yet.
MEESE: If there had been, they would have gotten Scooter Libby on that.
MATTHEWS: Yes, we just had Russ Tice on here, a staffer from the NSA itself, and I asked him—maybe he‘s wrong, you tell me—people who were being targeted by the NSA surveillance, know it. Now, we know it. The average American knows it. Why is that shameful, or why is that a betrayal of American trust for “The Times” to report that we now know what‘s going on?
MEESE: Because this was a legitimate, lawful act by the president.
MATTHEWS: Then why keep it secret?
MEESE: Because you don‘t want the enemy to know that you‘re intercepting and surveilling these kinds of conversation.
MATTHEWS: So you believe they didn‘t know that?
MEESE: I believe they didn‘t know all of it. Not like they do now, and I think it was a terrible thing to reveal this. I think “The New York Times” is culpable of actually hurting our national security.
MATTHEWS: So how would you go on—how about all leaks get punished?
MEESE: Well, I think it depends on the seriousness of the leak. You know, in the Plame case...
MATTHEWS: The CIA believes that the Plame case was serious because they believed that it jeopardized the undercover security of our agents around the world and all their contacts.
MEESE: I don‘t think that‘s true. And I think...
MATTHEWS: Why did they bring it to the Justice Department?
MEESE: And particularly, I think in this particular case, this person wasn‘t even a covert agent anymore. It had been more than five years since she ever had been undercover. She was operating fully...
MATTHEWS: The fact is that she‘s—her status was undercover, and the agency...
MEESE: Not at the time.
MATTHEWS: OK. Why did the agency go to the FBI?
MEESE: I have no idea.
MATTHEWS: Well, I do.
MEESE: It was certainly making a mountain out of a mole hill...
MATTHEWS: They felt...
MEESE: ... because here, she had been more than five years—she was a housewife. She worked at the agency in an administrative position. I think...
MATTHEWS: OK. Well, Scooter Libby is facing 30 years in jail for a mountain out of a mole hill. That‘s a serious matter.
MEESE: It has nothing to do—he wasn‘t even charged with that crime. He was charged with a lot of offenses relating, allegedly at least, to ...
MATTHEWS: OK, why is he covering it up?
MEESE: ... falsely ...
MATTHEWS: Why is he covering it up if it was legal?
MEESE: I‘m not sure he was. We‘ll have to wait for the trial to find that out.
MATTHEWS: We will. All we got are indictments.
Former Attorney General Ed Meese, thank you very much.
----end of excerpt------
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10836171/
This is not Clintonesque parsing.
| = |
You can take him! |
|
They call it a b*tch slap for a reason. And the B*tch got slapped good.
I have a sneaking suspicion Mr. Meese won't be returning to that program any time soon. Heheh
These libs are blowing up like Iraqi suicide bombers. First, Letterman last week admitting to O'Reilly he didn't know what he was talking about, after first proving it, and now Matthews being devoured by Meese.
Meese must have felt like Mark McGwire at a home-run derby:
"C'mon, throw me another one!"
And completely covered under the wiretapping laws. Technology has changed, but we still call it tapping.
This is not Clintonesque parsing.
It absolutely is. "We're not tapping, we're spying, see, we're not putting a tap on a specific phone line, so it's not tapping." Clintonesque BS. They intercepted phone conversations. That's tapping.
"Do you doubt for a moment that Matthews knew full well that he was lying thru his teeth every time he spoke?" MarkeyD
Precisely!
“MATTHEWS: OK. Well, Scooter Libby is facing 30 years in jail for a mountain out of a mole hill. That‘s a serious matter.
MEESE: It has nothing to do—he wasn‘t even charged with that crime.”
This one sentence proves that Matthews is a dolt, has no idea what he is talking about and is unable to even read a simple newspaper story.
Is your objection to the fact of it or the words used to defend it?
Wiretapping is tapping your wire. It is what it is. All calls are taped or monitored. This is called wire tapping.
If you monitor/record some calls to some people to some places it's more properly called surveillance. Like you watch a streetcorner or a bar. You watch the connection between al Queda and Mohammed in Boston.
One is wiretapping, the other surveillance.
The distinction is important because there is an important difference. It's not a subterfuge, it's using the correct word.
Here's a test: You have the choice between me tapping your phone or intercepting your calls to al Queda in Iraq.
Which would you prefer? Either, since there's no difference, right?
Yes, and the correct word has it's own definition and coordinating set of circumstances!
When was the last time somebody said "THE VOTERS ARE THE ULTIMATE CHECK AND BALANCE." He is accountable to US! Sheesh. If we are upset, we will vote the guy out. What is so hard about that to understand? /Rant
Doesn't matter. It's the interception itself by any means, including electronic devices, that matters. That is what is covered by the wiretapping laws, and what is generally referred to as wiretapping.
Go ahead, plug a computer into your neighbor's VOIP phone line and start recording everything he says. Don't listen, just record. Then turn yourself in and see whether you get prosecuted under the federal wiretapping laws.
All this Clintonesque word-weasling on the Republican side is getting sickening.
Matthews has an emotional opinion on the matter, fed by animosities that have nothing to do with the issues at hand here. He clearly never thought this stuff through beyond the bare minimum needed to feed his pre-existing animosities.
Meese, OTOH, is a very much brighter fellow to begin with, and he has a deep working knowledge of the real factors that underly these issues.
With that sort of difference between the participants in the debate, it's no wonder that this was such an unfair fight.
Plus which, of course, Meese has the advantage of being on the right side of an issue that is easily understood if by anybody who's able to look past their personal issues....
wasn't this swell?
So I guess this means we should put you down on the side of "don't try to figure out what the bad guys are trying to do to you."
Perfectly applicable for the first term, meaningless for the second.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.