Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- As Predicted, Austerity Policies Send US Economy Downward
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Operation Shamrock and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Despite an idealistic vision of the country's devotion to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights amendments, it may come as a shock to any American who has not been paying attention that the US government has been conducting illegal unconstitutional surveillance on its citizens for much of the last hundred years.
In what may have been the country's earliest coordinated effort at unconstitutional snooping, a government agency ominously named Black Chamber was in cahoots with Western Union after WWI to retrieve copies of telegrams in violation of the Radio Communications Act of 1912 and the Fourth Amendment.
Once publicly revealed, the operation was shut down only to resurface in 1945 when the Army Signals Security Agency, predecessor to the NSA (National Security Agency) began Operation Shamrock with the interception of millions of international communications from a 'watch list' of Americans.
Assured by government promises of legal immunity, RCA, Western Union and ITT Communications had agreed to provide confidential information to the government's Military Intelligence Division despite a violation of the Communication Act of 1934 and the Fourth Amendment.
James Bamford's well-researched The Shadow Factory -- The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America describes the details of how Shamrock's existence was revealed in 1975 and that Rep. Bella Abzug (D-NY), known for her colorful chapeaux and equally colorful personality, opened an investigation as Chair of the House Government Information and Individual Rights subcommittee.
With a bee in her bonnet, subcommittee hearings were scheduled. Bamford goes on to chronicle the rest of the story on Shamrock, claiming that with White House Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Edward Levi's encouragement, President Gerald Ford was willing to play hardball to protect the government's role in spying on Americans. After a series of high level bureaucrats including a personal visit by the Attorney General, failed to convince Abzug to cancel the hearings in the name of 'national security,' the three telecom companies, with encouragement from the White House, refused to testify. Upping the stakes, according to Bamford, both Levi and NSA Director Lew Allen also refused to testify.
By the time Abzug's subcommittee issued subpoenas to the absent CEOs, Rumsfeld had become Secretary of Defense and was replaced by Dick Cheney as WH Chief of Staff. Bamford goes on to examine the role of both Rumsfeld and Cheney as believers in vigorous executive privilege as they urged Ford to resist the subcommittee's requests while advising the CEOs to not comply with the subpoenas. In addition, Bamford states that "for the first time in American history, the concept of executive privilege was extended to a private corporation," as if private corporations had the same Constitutional rights as a president.
As the wheels of justice moved in reverse, a little known Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department came to Rumsfeld and Cheney's attention for his confrontational style as he prepared incisive legal arguments in favor of continued warrantless surveillance and granting unrestricted rights to the Executive Branch. By 1986, Antonin "Nino" Scalia would be appointed to the Supreme Court on a 98-0 vote.
Never a shrinking violet or intimidated by authority, Abzug, a graduate of Columbia University Law School who represented victims of the McCarthy era in the 1950's, was fully aware of the Constitutional precedents at risk. Knowing that Ford Administration appointees would hide behind official 'classified' lingo promising to reveal all in a closed door session, Abzug understood the necessity of pushing back in the interests of public disclosure.
Once the subcommittee voted to issue contempt citations for its recalcitrant witnesses, the three CEOs testified as to their involvement with Shamrock and turned over lists of names, as the Ford Administration capitulated.
That same year, Sen. Frank Church's (D-Id) Senate Committee on Government Operations conducted historic hearings that revealed illegal intelligence gathering on American citizens by the CIA and FBI.
In response to the government's covert role revealed by both investigations. Congress adopted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) signed by Ford's successor, Jimmy Carter, in 1978. The Act, which did not apply to US citizens, provided much needed Judicial and Congressional oversight of the government's surveillance activities of foreign agents in the United States and created a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
Appointed by the Chief Justice and staffed by eleven judges to serve seven year terms, the Attorney General provides the Court with evidence to approve surveillance and the Court provides compliance reports to Congressional intelligence committees. From 1980 through 2006, the Court approved a total of 22, 985 surveillance warrants out of 22,990 requests. Since 1978, the Act appeared to function as expected until the Bush Administration launched an unprecedented assault on the civil liberties of American citizens with warrantless surveillance.
Bamford and others have described in detail how the Administration's wiretap program caught the attention of Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith in 2004 when the obvious became apparent -- that the Bush warrantless surveillance program was illegal and unconstitutional. Goldsmith prepared a memo outlining his concerns as Deputy AG Jim Comey, the second highest law enforcement officer in the country, agreed that the program could no longer be certified by the Department of Justice. Sharing their conclusion with Attorney General John Ashcroft, it was decided to allow the program to terminate the next day.
What happened next was more dramatic than any West Wing script ever anticipated, when Ashcroft suddenly doubled over in pain. Rushed to George Washington Hospital, Ashcroft had major surgery for gallstone pancreatitis which left the AG in a seriously debilitated condition.
From there the story becomes more bizarre. Bamford describes how Comey, now acting in Ashcroft's absence, informed the White House that the Department would not re-authorize NSA's surveillance program. Faced with the potential of a shutdown at NSA as the deadline approached or the potential of criminal charges and seeing Comey as a 'loose cannon,' White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and WH Counsel Alberto Gonzales made a frantic bee-line to the hospital.
As Comey headed home that evening, he received an urgent call from Mrs. Ashcroft that two visitors were on their way. Comey immediately called FBI Director Robert Mueller to meet him at the hospital and with red lights flashing and sirens wailing, Comey's FBI driver put the peddle to the metal. Running up the stairs and arriving in Ashcroft's room just ahead of the White House aides, Mueller ordered Comey's FBI security detail to not allow him to be removed from Ashcroft's room.
Upon Gonzales and Card's arrival, Ashcroft, still in a weakened condition, refused to sign the necessary document to continue the program.
According to Bamford, soon after, Comey received an irate call from Card demanding that he come immediately to the White House. Comey replied that he would only meet with Card if a witness was present. Accompanied by Solicitor General Ted Olson, Comey arrived at the White House at almost midnight and reiterated the Department's position that the NSA program was outside the law as he continued to refuse to authorize its existence.
The next day the President of the United States used his executive authority to reauthorize the warrantless surveillance program over his Attorney General's objections. As a result, Attorney General Ashcroft, both Comey and Goldsmith along with a handful of other Department of Justice attorneys and FBI Director Mueller all prepared their letters of resignation. After a one on one meeting with both Comey and Mueller, realizing the potential for an en masse resignation of the country's top law enforcement officials, Bush agreed to scrap the most egregious elements of NSA's illegal 'data mining.'
Beginning with adoption of the Patriot Act in 2001 (98-1) the floodgates opened for covert government surveillance not only for the NSA, FBI, CIA and Homeland Security but for hundreds of municipal and state governments, a green light to infiltrate and spy on millions of American citizens. All it took was a frightened bi-partisan majority to open the legislative doors to allow a steady erosion of Fourth Amendment protections against 'unreasonable search and seizure' and 'probable cause' requirements while fragmenting FISA's original intent of limited surveillance and required judicial and Congressional oversight.
For all of its good intentions in 1978, FISA has since been thrust into dangerous, uncharted territory morphing into a vehicle of unintended consequences, subject to a series of amendments in 2008 that further eviscerated the Fourth Amendment.
As already well-documented by Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU, the Obama administration has accelerated the erosion of due process and Constitutional protections beyond the Bush era even as candidate Obama promised that "with the firm intention -- once I'm in as president -- to have my attorney general conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future."
Just as the Operation Shamrock experience instilled a lifelong passion in Cheney for omnipotent executive privilege, Jack Goldsmith resigned from the Department of Justice in 2004 with Jim Comey and John Ashcroft resigning soon after George Bush's inauguration in 2005. Robert Mueller remains FBI Director.
As the Act is due for reauthorization by December 31st it can be expected that legislative action will occur in the shadows of a lame duck session after the elections when what remains of the Act's original intent will be at its most vulnerable.
As the actions of fearless Members of Congress like Abzug and Church whose first priority was to truth and public servants like Jim Comey and Robert Mueller who stood, face to face, against a sitting President, is it too much to hope that somewhere there is a government official or two who might dig deep to find the courage and integrity to speak out, loud, clear and insistent, while there is still something of democracy worth saving?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


20 Comments so far
Show AllThank you Renee Parsons, for an excellent analysis, however depressing it is.
It is true that democracy and the rule of law are illusions in this country. We have met the enemy, and it is us.
No, the enemy is the Elite and their pet propaganda machine.
This is a first rate encapsulation of the demise of the right to privacy in the US and the pernicious shredding of the heart of the Constitution. It demonstrates the fascist nature of organization such as the Republican Party and the Tea Buggerers in that one will never hear a peep out of them regarding the systematic dismemberment of the very social contract that they purport to venerate. Oh the hypocrisy.
The enabling of the CE of the US to by fiat target a US national as well as the citizen of any other nation for incarceration or assassination and the willingness of the US legislative bodies to refuse to address the unconstitutionality of any civil policy they might find inconvenient to question has set this country up for a full blown fascist order. All that is still needed for a complete transformation is for the present or some future CE to take on a omnipotent role the likes of a "Duce" or "Caudillo" or "Fuehrer" or "Beloved Leader". It's happened before.
" It demonstrates the fascist nature of organization such as the Republican Party and the Tea Buggerers"
The "Patriot Act" was reauthorized in 2009, when Democrats controlled the House, Senate and Presidency, and again in 2011. Obama signed the bill into law both times.
CTRL-Z: Yes, I noticed this flawed statement, too. Let's remember WHO (hint: Democrats) has gone after whistle-blowers that expose inconvenient truths about U.S. foreign and domestic policies with a vengeance, added to who devised, and rendered into law the insidious NDAA.
Another important book that chronicles how deeply the spying on citizens, particularly Left-leaning intellectuals went is "Dangerous Dossiers," by Herbert Mitgang. Robert Frost was one of MANY on "the list."
Bill from Saginaw: If you come to this thread, I'd be very interested in your comments.
So few citizens know or understand the ways their liberties have been decimated. Fox News is too busy telling them that these protocols ONLY exist to make them safe, and ONLY target "terrorists." Therefore they, the good, pure, and truly innocents have nothing to worry about or fear in the way of that pesky tendency for Absolute Power to corrupt so absolutely.
Siouxrose: You're absolutely correct about the Dems. I envision a cartoon showing Obama crouched with his ear against a family's front door, his raised hand poised to give the entry signal to the large group of armored storm troopers surrounding him.
Obama is a civil liberties nightmare.
CTRL-Z: On another thread I coined the term: The Authoritarian Uni-Party... which is probably the more apt definition for the political collusion underway. When big money talks, most politicians line up and march to its drum-beat. The darkest irony of all is the Catch-22 that had Bankers/Wall St. finance the politicians who upon taking office, granted this ilk immense homage in the form of a return to the tune of countless dollars to the pennies (of their campaign investment "portfolios:). The public was told that $700 billion went to the banks and that it ALL got paid back. In reality, sums were "quantitatively eased" to the tune of at least $4 trillion... and counting. Heck, purchasing a politician pays better odds than some of the better "performing" Hedge Funds these days.
Siouxrose: That reminds me of the definition of an honest politician - one who stays bought.
It's just amazing how easily it was accomplished once we didn't have any Apzugs, Churchs, Muellers or Comeys left. No one of their character aspire to those positions any longer. And now we've legalized assasinations, some of citizens who also happen to be religious clerics. Such a "Brave New World".
Refuting YOUR need, Gardener-orcal, to make it about this abstract "we," as in:
"And now we've legalized assasinations, some of citizens who also happen to be religious clerics."
From Tom Mayor's article today, the following responses were found in the thread that followed it:
Elizabeth Tjader (stating something analogous to what I've said frequently in this forum):
"The author asks at the beginning of this piece, "do the people of the United States want perpetual warfare?" No we don't! And frankly, I don't remember anyone in government asking "we the people" if we wanted wars with Iraq or Afghanistan or any other country upon whom we've reeked utter devastation and death."
FRTothus said:
"The American people do not determine policy."
Philiphokos said:
"The fate of the world is in the hands of mad men," which was reinforced by Whizbang.
Want Real Democracy added:
"We have absolutely no responsibility for the crazy actions of our government."
Evidently I am not the only one challenging the use of the WE meme. It does a lot of dishonest things, and these include:
1. Making citizens responsible for what elected officials do in their name
2. Pretending that the policy decisions are in place to benefit the body politic, rather than the 1%/elites
3. Reinforcing the lie that voting matters given the collusion of both parties and to which masters they do their bidding
It was disappointing to see Ephraim go along with this WE schtick. WERE the nation's leaders acting on the genuine wishes of the population, and were that population NOT the victim of a Captured media using all sorts of Bernays' tactics to manufacture consent on the basis of dis-information campaigns masterfully wrought 24/7... THEN the use of the word WE might own both honesty AND traction!
Following most theads, I've noticed that your stated views either reinforce the status quo, lament that there's nothing that can be done, divert the subject matter under discussion, or otherwise use a meme like the one in this thread... allotting to the wrong suspects, culpability for the "crime."
It is not all that surprising to see Antonin Scalia's name pop up in the Ford administration attempt to cover up illegal activity, along with Donald Rumsfeld & Dick Cheney. Also not surprising is the majority of the Democratic party who ignore the brave work of their 70's predecessors like Bella Abzug and Frank Church at their and the USA's peril.
Remember that those Commissions revealed only what they were ALLOWED to reveal. That is the stuff those in power deemed the least damaging.
Someone makes a stink. It enough of a stink to raise eyebrows and to garner a politician favor if he "looks into it". A Commission is struck that goes through the motions of getting to the bottom of it. This helps halt other investigations that might reveal stuff more harmful. The Commission makes its findings and there shock expressed at what was going on and the assurance it would never happen again.
Far from revealing the full and honest truth, these commissions tend to ensure the full and honest truth is never learned.
Commissions run by Politicians RARELY reveal what needs to be revealed.
Well-observed, Gw.
These commissions 'tend to' ensure the full and honest truth is never learned because that is their true purpose-- and such "truths" as they discover and disclose are routinely neutralized and nullified by the time they issue a final report, or whatever outcome they are charged to provide.
Once in a great while, investigations like the Church Committee or the Whitewater hearings elicit controversial and game-changing revelations. But these are exceptions that test the rule, and even the most successful official investigations are stymied or deflected by modified limited hangouts.
The craziest thing of all is that despite all of the high-flown rhetoric accompanying the creation and conduct of these entities, the authorities often leave behind evidence that the commission's true mission is to falsify and manipulate the course of the investigation and falsify its findings to conform to a predetermined conclusion.
Such evidence ranges from actual inculpatory documents, e.g. memoranda or transcripts showing how the game is to be rigged, to indications that the supposedly unimpeachable participants are compromised, that crucial witnesses and lines of inquiry are deliberately ignored or excluded, etc.
The bogus Warren Commission is an egregious example, perhaps the granddaddy, of the Amerikan official whitewash scam. And even the subsequent AARB and congressional investigations were set up to give the appearance of getting to the full and honest truth, while administratively precluding rigorous pursuit of fundamental questions and rank chicanery.
Don't get me started on the "9/11 Commission".
These commissions will surely get to A bottom of whatever they're charged to investigate, but just as surely it will be a false bottom.
Jack Goldsmith, Jim Corney and, of course, Ashcroft were functionaries in an extremely right wing administration - and yet even they could not stomach whatever it was being cooked up in 2004 (which remains unknown). If these measures were as beyond the pale as can be assumed, what then motivates Card and Gonzales to attempt the hospital visit (which seems like something out of "The Godfather") and then the executive override? The absence of answers equals an absence of understanding as to what is going on in the current moment. It would be important to know, for example, if the measures deemed so explosive in 2004 have found official assent in the Obama administration's flurry of unconstitutional assertions.
Yep, Jeffc, if we take the character of their convictions into account, it becomes a lot easier to connect the dots and realize how so suddenly, all of the following came down the politically connected pipe-line:
1. 911
2. Wars based on fixed "evidence"
3. Huge profits to big oil, private armies like Blackwater, & weapons contractors
4. The rise of the authoritarian state & Homeland Security's rapidly growing fascist Hydra
5. The banks' ownership of politicians who would make the Savings & Loan scam look like a cake-walk... when it came to the 2007-2008 bail-out (and its fiscal numbers)
6. The Unitary Executive giving rise to a decimation of The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and sovereign Civil Liberties.. with its (no doubt planned) climax the NDAA
7. The nod to torture and off-shore torture camps
8. EVERYTHING illegal the State does hidden behind the "State Secrets' Clause"
9. The need to go after those in the know, i.e. inconvenient whistle-blowers
10. The deft way no lawbreakers were held accountable, with one administration granting cover to the next
11. The Supreme Court exalting the "personhood" of the corporation to the point where elections have become a blatant purchase (via "Citizens, United")
12. Other
Lots of dots to connect... but this little window into the on-going drama tells a lot.
I have come to believe that "the fix" was in by the summer of 2000 - and that includes all the things on the above list. The provocation led by Sharon at the Temple Mount in September 2000 was undertaken with some kind of behind-the scenes knowledge, hinted at the time, regarding upcoming geo-political events. Also worth re-considering was the installation of Lieberman as Gore's VP pick. If Gore had actually won, I suspect he would not have been long for this world.
Good story and many good points!
Generally forgotten in the histrionic defenses of universal surveillance and the police state is that the NSA, FBI and CIA already had, under existing law, enough information that could have averted the 9/11 attacks if it had been competently followed up. There was an is no need to shred the Constitution to protect the public; indeed, we are far more endangered by our fearful embrace of turnkey totalitarianism than by terrorists themselves.
OUR Fearful embrace of turnkey totalitarianism? Or a no-holes barred assertion on the part of the authoritarian state? Odd inversion there, Cassandra. Also, about 2 weeks ago you made a disparaging comment about astrology. However, since you're using the name "Cassandra," that of a great Prophetess, what's up with that slight?
I do so miss Bella Abzug (and her colorful chapeaux)!
Bella Abzug - http://www.nndb.com/people/601/000024529/