Scaring lawmakers to sell FISA
A couple of years ago, former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge acknowledged that the Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks based on flimsy evidence. “There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, ‘For that?'” Ridge told reporters.
The answer, of course, was to scare the bejeezus out of people, in the hopes that Bush’s approval ratings would go up, the administration could get more power, or both.
Sometimes, though, the scare tactics are directed at lawmakers themselves. Roll Call reported in early August, “Capitol Police officials have stepped up the department’s security presence on Capitol Hill in response to intelligence indicating the increased possibility of an al-Qaida terrorist attack on Congress sometime between now and Sept. 11.” Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) turned up the heat, adding “Congress needed to pass changes to terrorist surveillance laws before leaving for the August recess and warned that otherwise ‘the disaster could be on our doorstep.'”
And therein lied the point: Congress was debating whether (and how) to revise FISA when lawmakers were told al Qaeda might attack Capitol Hill directly. The message to members had all the subtlety of a sledgehammer — give the administration more sweeping powers, immediately, or your lives are on the line.
Newsweek, following up on comments Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) made to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, reports that the threats may have been a scam.
A leading House Democrat has charged that congressional Republicans promoted “bogus” intelligence about a reputed terror threat on Capitol Hill last summer, inflaming debate over the Bush administration’s proposal to dramatically expand the U.S. government’s electronic surveillance powers.
Rep. Jane Harman, who chairs a key homeland-security subcommittee, has provided new details this week about an alarming intel report in August that warned of a possible Al Qaeda attack on the Capitol. The report, which was quickly discredited, was circulated on Capitol Hill at a critical moment: just as the administration was mounting a major push for a new surveillance law that would permit the U.S. intelligence community to intercept suspected terrorist communications without seeking approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
To be sure, I’ve argued that Dems handled the debate poorly, and rushed to give Bush too much of what he wanted, without checks and balances. But this at least points to a mitigating factor.
In the days before the vote on the surveillance bill in early August, the U.S. Capitol Police suddenly stepped up security procedures, and one top Republican senator, Trent Lott, seemed to allude to the report when he claimed that “disaster could be on our doorstep” if the Congress didn’t immediately act. Inside the Congress, “there was a buzz about this,” Harman told NEWSWEEK. “There was an orchestrated campaign to basically gut FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], and this piece of uncorroborated intelligence was used as part of it.”
In fact, the intel report that provoked the concern was never publicly cited by the Bush administration in the run up to the surveillance bill — and was clearly labeled as unreliable when it was first passed to the U.S. Capitol police over the summer. The report lacked any specifics and was based on a foreign intelligence source U.S. officials did not view to be credible. (A written summary of the report, which made clear its limits, was also provided to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.) But the alleged misuse of the information by some members of Congress illustrates the perils of one of the major changes instituted after the September 11 attacks: a commitment by U.S. intelligence officials to share with state and local law-enforcement agencies all reports about prospective terror threats in their communities no matter how vague and unreliable.
“This stuff falls under the category of, ‘somebody, somewhere, some day is going to do something,’ said a congressional aide who works on intelligence issues but who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive information. In the past, many law-enforcement and intelligence professionals viewed it as irresponsible and unduly alarmist to pass along such uncorroborated reports. But now they are routinely shared — lest federal officials are later accused of “holding back” information that might have saved lives.
And if that dubious intelligence just happens to push lawmakers into giving Bush expanded and unprecedented powers, then the administration gets a two-fer.
Maybe the outcome of the vote would have been exactly the same; it’s hard to know for sure. But consider this: does anyone think the administration and congressional Republicans are above pushing bogus intelligence to get the legislation they want?
This is where the Congress of the United States could follow the lead displayed by the students of Columbia University. When faced with a threat that is little more than comedy, don’t cower in fear—just laugh. I’s dearly love to see at least a few, brave souls—from amongst the cowering quislings that the Democratic caucuses of this Congress have become—stand up and burst out laughing at these scare-peddlers. Just once—and maybe have someone say “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” while someone else starts chanting “Way to go, Toto!”
…does anyone think the administration and congressional Republicans are above pushing bogus intelligence to get the legislation they want?
Of course not. The Bush Laden Crime Family are international criminals of the highest order and should be tried for capital crimes and treason.
But the manipulation and exploitation of fear will continue on this pervasive scale until Americans wake up and realize that 9/11 was indeed a psychological attack as well as a physical attack.
When our elected representatives and appointed officials of the Federal Government manipulate and exploit fear for political purposes, they are willfully prolonging the psychological trauma brought about by 9/11 upon the American Psyche. Indeed, they become the terrorists that they portend to “protect” us from.
This is the administration that cried “wolf,” over and over. To take them seriously requires a “willing suspension of disbelief,” to use the phrase that got the wingnuts in such a tizzy when Hillary used it while questioning Petraeus the Truthful.
Someday the United States might be the target of an attack by terrorists. American intelligence agencies might even find out about it in advance. But if this happens during the remainder of the Bush Administration, one of two things will happen:
1) Bush will ignore the warnings, like he ignored the warnings of 9/11. (“Okay, you’ve covered your ass.”)
2) The administration will warn the nation, but no one will believe them because of all the times they cried “wolf” for political gain.
Who sent Leahy Anthrax?
Leahy: [Slowly, with a little shake of the head] I don’t think it’s somebody insane. I’d accept everything else you said. But I don’t think it’s somebody insane. And I think there are people within our government — certainly from the source of it — who know where it came from. [Taps the table to let that settle in] And these people may not have had anything to do with it, but they certainly know where it came from.”
yes, yes, i noted at the time that obviously some dems were scared by this story.
but the fact is, some dems were scared by this story, which means they really do think that exanding FISA is a good idea. if they didn’t, they would have said, i will live with that threat because i think it’s more important to live up to the constitution than to turn our society more totalitarian in response to fear.
that vote, single-handedly, let me to decide not to give any money to the DNC this go-round, as i’ve now told both a door-to-door fundraiser and several telephone fundraisers, because it showed the true chickenshit nature of too many dems, too willing to be scared into doing the wrong thing.
so as far as i’m concerned: there is no mitigation here. i hated it at the time, i hate it now, and the idea that dems should succumb to a dishonest administration and its phony terror whispers remains disgusting.
With this administration paranoia is legitimate thinking and all ‘coincidence’ is highly suspect and should be viewed as planned. How can there be any doubt as to the dishonesty and underhandedness from the party of obstruction and hypocrisy who are proven liars already?
Of course the used the fear of a terrorist attack to get the legislation they wanted just prior to vacation…they knew it was bogus and elected members would not want to hang around just to deal with Bush’s “rush” to corrupt the law. Half the dems in the senate went along with it…to an optimist that means the senate is half fool.
I agree with Howard. There is no mitigation. The scary information was transparently a ploy by the administration. I wrote at the time that anyone who believed it was an idiot.
Bush is Lucy with the football, and the morons in Congress with a D next to their name play Charlie Brown EVERY DAMN TIME. Nobody is that stupid. The only sensible conclusion is that they actively desire the expansion of the national security police state, and are just using the scary intel as cover for their votes.
If I were in the Congress, I don’t know that I would have any trust for anything coming out of the administration. How do you trust that you are voting the way you should when you no longer know if what you’ve been told is the truth, some version of the truth, or a big, fat lie? Mike McConnell is still insisting that if we roll back those new FISA provisions, Americans will die. Oh, no!! What if he’s right? How can I vote to revoke when something bad might happen and I will get the blame??? Look what happened when Bush ignored that PDB!
It’s an infomercial of epic proportions, one which a huge majority of the people have seen right through, but which has enough buyers in the Congress to keep the whole operation going.
What makes me so mad is that they know – the know – that they do not have to chuck all our rights and frreedoms out the door in order for us to be “safe,” whatever that means, and I’m pretty much sick of my rights being sacrificed and pulled out from under me without my permission; I would rather take the chance on an attack than just give up things I may never get back.
If we can send our men and women into war to die for these democratic principles, those of us on the home front should be willing to take the risks that come with protecting these precious rights and freedoms. How sad that our Congress doesn’t see that.
we all know that bush and his gang are liars.yes we are at war,but when did some americans become a bunch of pussies.i will never give up my freedom (Bill of Rights,remember them?) to any polictical party.and yes some people will die but the repubilcans uses 911 to chip away at our freedoms then i have to say that bin ladin is winning this war.there are monks fighting a military dictatership without arms and here in our country we have pussies under thier free will giving up our freedom to” feel safe”is that fucked-up or what?
But, you’re missing the point: They successfully thwarted the attack on Congress by gutting FISA!
(/snark)
“What makes me so mad is that they know – the know – that they do not have to chuck all our rights and frreedoms out the door in order for us to be “safe,” whatever that means, and I’m pretty much sick of my rights being sacrificed and pulled out from under me without my permission; I would rather take the chance on an attack than just give up things I may never get back.”
extremely well put, annie. thank-you.
CB, if vague threats were enough to scare Congress, you need to change the page design a little. Keep the picture of the Capitol, and just photoshop a giant chicken atop the rotunda.
I don’t think they were scared of Al-Quaida, I think they’re just stupid and lazy.
Dude, I’ve been waiting to see this show up here. Olbermann’s been talking about this most of the week, and interviewed Rep.Harmon last night. If she finds a way to make it stick, more power to her.
Maybe they weren’t afraid of an actual Al Qaeda attack. Maybe the “message” of that intelligence was,
“If you don’t pass this bill, something could happen for which you will be blamed. I personally would never order such a heinous act, but certain elements… I don’t think I need to name names, if you know what I mean… might take matters into their own hands and of course the media would waste no time attributing thus attacks to Al Qaeda. And other individuals… heh heh I don’t think I need to name names again… might suggest that the attack could have been prevented had you the Democrats of Congress given the president the tools he needed to stop it, if you know what I mean.”
The reason was to err on the side of caution. Since caution was reactionary at the time it was not intentional and it was not lunatic conspiracy nutcase fodder. You won’t get that as your reality already included that. But you are wrong. And pathetic at that.
Mitigate, shmitigate. The democrats should be at least as much in the know as republicans are, and should be able to recognize a bogus threat hyped to push an agenda – many of them have done more or less bugger-all but politics all their adult lives. How many times do they have to be lied to before they learn to ANTICIPATE being lied to? I have zero respect for any democrat who voted to give the president an ex-post-facto get-out-of-jail-free card without saying, “there’s intelligence that indicates an increased potential for attack? Well, I know as much about intelligence analysis as you do – let me see it”. Don’t suggest there would be any grounds for withholding intelligence from congressional members whose lives were actually threatened by the situation forecast in that intelligence! Not even so craven a congress as this one would tolerate that. And if it’s so easily revealed to have been bogus in retrospect, there’s every reason to expect at least some democrats would have recognized it as another republican situation-dependent leg pull at the time.
As it happens, the vote has already served its purpose. By making Bush’s illegal wiretapping retroactively legal – the second ex-post-facto law this administration has managed to get on the books (the other was the legalization of torture) – there is now zero chance he will ever be successfully prosecuted for it, even after he’s a private citizen again. Once it was clearly illegal. Now it was temporarily legal and retroactive, and that’s good enough to torpedo any chance of ever stringing Bush up for that particular crime. By the time he’s done with you, you’ll be lucky if you can bring him up on a parking ticket. He’s a criminal, and I bet every night he laughs himself to sleep over the stumbling boobs who can’t keep up with his artful dodging. If you didn’t laugh along with him, you’d scream until they dragged you away.
I think there should be a law that prohibits the passage of legislation during a heightened “terror alert”.