The cure is probably Pentagon Papers-like disclosure. But, none of those folks wants to risk it, so they’re trying ot get to the awful truth another way.

I wish them luck.

P.S. Mueller seemed awfully happy during the Conyers hearing the other day. I’d guess some of these folks will be awfully happy to get out from under this terrible situation and the whole Bush era. I wonder if Congressional Repubs can be convinced of the same.

Here is another, suggestion, although there are so many government conspiracies to spy on Americans. Abramoff, and Ney cooked up a scheme for a Congress Wireless phone system. The company was Foxcom, which happened to be Isr**li.
========
…

It’s a perfect fit with the national emergency software system provided by a Saudi Arabian company.

160 – Harman & Covert activities.

With respect to the quoted passages, here is what is going on.

In general, with respect to intelligence collection and other intelligence activities, the National Security Act requires the White House to Brief ALL MEMBERS of the Intelligence Committees. Not just the Gang of 8 – all members of the committees. There is no “out” where the President can claim the information is classified in order to keep from briefing the full intelligence committees on the information.

However, for a small (hopefully) subset of classified information, the Executive Branch is allowed to limit briefings to just the “gang of 8″ and not the whole committees. That subset is classified information about “covert action” that the Exec Branch is going to undertake. There is a statute that defines covert actions and it specifically exempts out intelligence collection activities as not being “covert actions”

So Harman, in those passages, is merely saying that it was wrong and continues to be wrong to only brief the Gang of 8 on the TSP or other surveillance activities and that the whole committees should be briefed.

There are other aspects of briefing in FISA that she doesn’t refer to and that may have an impact, but her Nat Sec Act analysis seems spot on.

So if a member of the Gang of 8 realized the briefing they had received legally SHOULD have been given to the full intelligence committees, to whom could they have filed a complaint? The FISA court? Someone else? Or would they not be able to complain given the classified nature of the briefing?

Is it possible that the illegal version of the TSP was actually a program that automatically compiled a portrait (or dossier of sorts) on any given citizen at the touch of search button; and the corrections made were to a) stop it! and b) destroy the database?

And who thinks they’d destroy the database?

That sounds like the Total Information Awareness program which was supposed to have been dismantled long ago.

With respect to the quoted passages, here is what is going on.

In general, with respect to intelligence collection and other intelligence activities, the National Security Act requires the White House to Brief ALL MEMBERS of the Intelligence Committees. Not just the Gang of 8 – all members of the committees. There is no “out” where the President can claim the information is classified in order to keep from briefing the full intelligence committees on the information.

However, for a small (hopefully) subset of classified information, the Executive Branch is allowed to limit briefings to just the “gang of 8″ and not the whole committees. That subset is classified information about “covert action” that the Exec Branch is going to undertake. There is a statute that defines covert actions and it specifically exempts out intelligence collection activities as not being “covert actions”

So Harman, in those passages, is merely saying that it was wrong and continues to be wrong to only brief the Gang of 8 on the TSP or other surveillance activities and that the whole committees should be briefed.

There are other aspects of briefing in FISA that she doesn’t refer to and that may have an impact, but her Nat Sec Act analysis seems spot on.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/….._0727.html

Somehow, I don’t think Moore is all that upset, or surprised, by the subpoena. After all, it’s more publicity for the movie. But even more importantly, it’s more publicity for the issue.

Gad, the bushies are stupid.

As someone said, just red meat for the rightwing blogs and Fox. Bread and circuses for the masses.

phred @ 133

I caught “asselephants” in your earlier post, and I rather like it — your coinage or someone else’s?

My coinage! Glad you like it! Thanks for the comment….

btw…. following the money and the asselephants……..

http://www.opensecrets.org/ind…..;cycle=All

Thanks for the link, clearly the Rethugs are winners in the oil industry contributions, but perhaps your point is if the small percentage that goes to Dems only goes to a few individuals, those would be the ones who would cooperate with Rethug oil policy.

FWIW, my view of things is broader than oil. Oil is a lucrative component of the larger whole, but I think the neocons had a lot more in mind than just one sector of the economy by going into Iraq. They envisioned the oil reserves as paying for this little adventure of theirs, but I think they had hoped to go way beyond that. I read an article a long time ago (I have looked for the link, but failed to track it down yet) that made the case that the neocons wanted to use Iraq as an example of how great unfettered “free” markets would be in a system that had a minimal government. My own take on this though, is that while this would have been quite the feather in their cap, their real objective was here at home, to reinstitute robber baron capitalism with the wealthy comprising a noble class that would govern in a monarchical system, having left the Constitution in tatters. In my view, this is what Rove’s permanent majority was all about, nothing less than the destruction of our representative democracy in favor of a monarchy in all but name.