Ally Told Bush Spying Projects Might Be Illegal [programs that have not been publicly revealed....]

New York Times ^

[Recovering_Democrat]

In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.

Who gives a SHIITE MUSLIM??? Hoekstra is not the CinC.

[Alas Babylon!]

Hoekstra will be on Fox News Sunday tomorrow. Check out what he says then. For FReeper comments about it, check out the Sunday Morning Talk Show thread I'll post tomorrow!

[HawaiianGecko]

"I have been betting on Rockefeller."

So have I.

 

[conservative in nyc]

I think the main question is who had access to this letter?

The actual letter is here. John Negroponte, Josh Bolton and Steven Hadley were copied on the letter. I doubt anyone in the Bolton or Hadley camps would have leaked the letter. Somebody in the intelligence community with ties to Negroponte's office - possible.

It's also possible that the letter was released as part of a FOIA request to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence by the New York Times. I'm not sure whether the office would have released the letter, though, and the New York Times makes no mention of making such a request.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

"Congress and Judges need to let the Executive Branch execute its job."

Yes. We need one of these from Congress......

(Britains) Official Secrets Act 1989 (c. 6):

1 Security and intelligence.
2 Defence.
3 International relations.
4 Crime and special investigation powers.
5 Information resulting from unauthorised disclosures or entrusted in confidence.
6 Information entrusted in confidence to other States or international organisations.
7 Authorised disclosures.
8 Safeguarding of information.
9 Prosecutions.
10 Penalties.
11 Arrest, search and trial.
12 "Crown servant" and "government contractor".
13 Other interpretation provisions.
14 Orders.
15 Acts done abroad and extent.
16 Short title, citation, consequential amendments, repeals, revocation and commencement.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890006_en_1.htm

(note....1-16 are hotlinks to the text of the sections)

[gondramB]

>>The actual letter is here. John Negroponte, Josh Bolton and Steven Hadley were copied on the letter. I doubt anyone in the Bolton or Hadley camps would have leaked the letter. Somebody in the intelligence community with ties to Negroponte's office - possible.<<

I don't know... Negroponte was one of the guys helping the contras he doesn't seem like the leaking of covert ops kind of guy.

But I guess anybody can have a bad staffer.

[HawaiianGecko]

"I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed," Mr. Hoesktra wrote. "If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies."

Hmmmm... at least the accusation highlighted in red isn't a wild guess.

 

[CharlesWayneCT]

The letter says he has "heard" of some programs, which "if accurate" is disturbing because he didn't get briefed.

There is no indication from the letter that these "alleged programs" actually exist.

If there WERE programs that Hoekstra had no inkling of, that WOULD be an issue, because he's supposed to at least know about the existance of every program.

But it is quite likely that the programs he references did not actually exist, and were just attempts by anti-Bush forces in the CIA or other agencies to try to stir up trouble for the administration.

[CharlesWayneCT]

BTW, the letter itself does not seem to reference any specific programs, and it's "leak" isn't really a national security matter.

My guess is that, having received a letter like this, and being pretty sure there were no programs that were unrevealed, the administration would have sent the letter to underlings to direct them to answer the letter and provide briefings to ensure the congressman that there were no such programs.

So the letter probably was accessable by multiple enemies of the administration. And since the letter itself does NOT allege wrongdoing, there wouldn't be much problem with it -- it's the NYTimes spin that the letter is accusing the administration.

It's like the NY Times publishing a letter saying that I accused my daughter of possible wrongdoing because someone told me she had done something and I asked her if she had.

[RJL]

The President receives information from hundreds of sources. If he stopped every time one guy wasn't happy about something, nothing would get done.

I'm sure President Bush discussed the legal aspects of this with the appropriate folks.

This is nothing more than the treasonous NYT attacking the President once again.

[do the dhue]

I would agree with an act like that.

I think it would keep the media in check. I can not stand it when the media puts a front page story over our National Security.

[Hartmann]

And you can be sure the NY Times is sending its reporters ferreting around, trying to discover just what those programs are so that they can publish the details for the terrorists to see. I can just hear the pant pant.

They figure revelation of terrorist tracking programs and the ensuing terrorist attacks will sell newspapers. After 9/11 they published an additional section for months with biographies and pictures of the victims. Their circulation went up and they got some Pulitzers. Isn't this called "yellow journalism"?

[Doug Loss]

It may be legal for them to print classified information, but it should be 100% illegal for them to conceal their sources.

Actually, it's not legal for them to print classified information, at least in some cases. Section 798 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code is the relevant law.

[okie01]

He added: "The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play Twenty Questions to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution."

Congressman, the fact that this direct quote from your letter appears in the New York Times should explain WHY you must play "twenty questions".

Simply stated, certain members of your committee (or staff) can't keep their mouths shut.

[The Old Hoosier]

Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.

But don't worry, we'll reveal them soon enough!

[Iscool]

Who gives a SHIITE MUSLIM??? Hoekstra is not the CinC.

And the CINC is not the KING...

Hoekstra's committee is a Congressional and Constitution oversight committee...You may not think someone needs to keep an eye on Bush and Rove, or Clinton or any of the rest of them but I do...

If information 'like this' can't be released, there'd be no public pressure to keep the Kings and Queens within the law...

I can't say whether we need to know 'what' information was kept hidden from the committee, but it's good to know the committee is doing it's job and it's good to know whether this, or any other administration may not be...

[Kimberly GG]

"I will not support any Republican who does not support President Bush. Give no money to the Republican National Committee any any of the generic GOP congressional fund raising groups. Contribute directly only to candidates who support the President and support defending this country again terror attacks."


Either you support those Rep. candidates who support the President, or you support those Rep. candidates who are willing to effectively secure the border. I don't think you can have it both ways.

[mrsmith]

Strange, now the headline is "Ally Told Bush Project Secrecy Might Be Illegal ".

It should be "Ally's Concerns Answered" since, near the end, the article says Hayden had responded about the programs.

Funny the article doesn't mention the part of Hoekstra's letter about the Democrat cabal in the CIA and Valerie Plame.
'All the news that fits our agenda' LOL!

[Recovering_Democrat]

And the CINC is not the KING...

I never said he was. I do think Bush is exercising Congressionally authorized activity by fixating on the enemy. No one has ever provided any evidence otherwise.

Instead, we have a NY Slimes and a bunch of panic-mongers who think people's civil rights could possibly maybe perhaps be being violated at some time in the future.

Now I'm not saying Hoekstra is out of line by communicating with the President regarding wartime behaviour. I am saying the LameStream Media and other liberal interests are likely trying once again to create a furor where there is none.

They tried the same thing with John Ashcroft and with Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and with Tom DeLay...and every time they come up way short.

There is no reason to think this is any different. Hoekstra is out there trying to get the LSM to focus on the chemical weapons found in Iraq...so what happens? They find some perceived "rift" between the conservatives. It is so old hat!

Hoekstra's committee is a Congressional and Constitution oversight committee...You may not think someone needs to keep an eye on Bush and Rove, or Clinton or any of the rest of them but I do...

I happen to think the power of the Presidency has been eroded since Watergate and that is a bad thing. I am happy to see we finally have a President who believes in exercising the Constitutional power of the Executive branch. I think culturally we have been treated to an emasculated EB since Nixon resigned in disgrace, and a generation has been imbued with the idea that the President is somehow the servant of the Courts and of Congress.

Of course I'm not for an unaccountable Executive; Congress still has the purse strings and the courts (imo) should have a more limited role in defining the law. Right now we have an administration attempting to re-assert the Executive's independence from the other branches and that is a good thing.

If information 'like this' can't be released, there'd be no public pressure to keep the Kings and Queens within the law...

You're calling them Kings and Queens, not me! :)

I can't say whether we need to know 'what' information was kept hidden from the committee, but it's good to know the committee is doing it's job and it's good to know whether this, or any other administration may not be...

I don't necessarily disagree since I don't know all the details involved. Hoekstra is a good man, and I think if you're dealing with men and women of good character and excellent judgement, then governance will be reliable. Again, I am not against a co-equal branch of government talking internally with another...though Bush as CinC already has the authorization to wage war against the Islamofacists, and in my opinion the Congress needs to butt out or de-fund it.

But that is not why this news came out, and maybe that is why you perceive we disagree. This news came out to be a slap at Bush and to divide the conservatives.

I hope all this makes sense, as it is late and I seem to be getting my words all jumbled.

[Iscool]

I hope all this makes sense, as it is late and I seem to be getting my words all jumbled.

Yer doin' fine...I do agree...The fact that the NYT as well as most media outlets are chomping at the bit to get something on the President puts a bit of a fog in front of the actual story...As others have said, we'll likely know more about it tomorrow...