Slashdot Mirror
Domestic Spying Records Ordered Released
CokoBWare wrote to mention an eWeek report on the NSA's domestic spying program. A federal judge has ordered the Department of Justice to release records from the program by March 8th. From the article: "In ordering the Justice Department to expedite the FOIA request processing, Judge Henry Kennedy Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said that the department's opinion that it could determine how much time is needed was 'easily rejected ... Under DOJ's view of the expedited processing provisions of FOIA, the government would have carte blanche to determine the time line for processing expedited requests,'"
"Vague suggestions that inadvertent release of exempted documents might occur are insufficient to outweigh the very tangible benefits that FOIA seeks to further--government openness and accountability," he wrote.
This judge is my new personal hero (temporarily displacing Alton Brown), and exactly the type of person who SHOULD be a judge. He actually seems like he cares about people and knows what kind of stuff gets pulled behind the scenes.
He may as well have come out and said "Sorry, guys, you're full of shit. Give us ALL the records, and soon."
A big tip of my hat to this guy... and a wag of my finger to the bush administration... bears are still the #1 threat at the moment...
-nick
On March 8th, which page of the newspaper will this story be buried on and who will Dick Cheney have to shoot to get that to happen?
(sarcasm doesn't always transmit well via text...)
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
From TFA: "EPIC asked the Justice Department for four types of records, including an audit of NSA domestic surveillance activities, a checklist showing probable cause to eavesdrop, communications about the use of information NSA obtained, and other documents concerning increased domestic surveillance." My new hero this judge is.
This case will eventually wind up in the Supreme Court, where its chances are unspectacular. Cases like this are usually filed in a court that the filing party knows or strongly suspects will be sympathetic to their claim - a practice known as "judge shopping". I would be absolutely shocked if this suit lost in the first round.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Why is so much time given? This gives plenty of time to gather up and redact tons of information prior to delivery. I expect we'll end up with millions of pages of black rectangles on them with few, if any, legible words on them.
Wow, an example of checks and balances. I thought that was pretty much gone now.
Next steps: The White House will declare him an "activist judge" (whatever that really means) and unpatriotic. Meanwhile a religious zealot on the ABC Family channel will pray for his death.
But nothing is more patriotic than those in power keeping the government open. Because nothing could more empower the citizens.
Developers: We can use your help.
Even if these records get released and prove to be, as claimed, solely people with direct links to known and documented terrorists, that still does not exonerate the establishment of the program. The real issue was never a matter of whether, at this particular time, the NSA was listening in on you or your grandma, it was about precedent. The real issue is whether it is acceptable for an agency like the NSA to conduct domestic surveillance without oversight, without warrants of any kind. In the past the law has been such that various types of surveillance were permitted, but as these cases have come to light each loophole has been blocked - it was precisely for this reason that the Foreign Intelligence Services Court, and the corresponding act, was originally created. An about face and progressive weakening of such laws sets a dangerous precendent, and in my view shouldn't be tolerated. Don't let the report as to what surveillance was conducted blind you to the deeper issue of whether such a precedent is acceptable.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
It's safe to release all of the domestic spying records, now that Bush got his literal "get out of jail free" deal from his Republican Congress.
After terrorists attack our ports through infiltrating the royal United Arab Emirates corporation that just got handed the ports management contracts, I expect Congress will pass a law that says that "no one could have anticipated that the ports would be infiltrated through their foreign managers".
--
make install -not war
BushCo: 1x10^7
The highlighted is exactly what the Bush Administration has been trying to prevent since he came into office and frankly I don't see this victory becoming a trend.
Bush, Cheney and the Republicans have already been cracking down on leaks of classified information so that they won't have any more splaining to do.
Remember how they jumped all over the leak of the NSA spying? Not to condemn possible spying of Americans, but to demand investigations in order to discover the identity of the leaker(s).
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
To turn the "law and order" types' favorite phrase back on them, the law is the law. If the government will not obey its own laws, then it has no moral authority to operate. Ironically, that's a Biblical concept, not a liberal idea. According to scripture, God's authority to stand in divine judgement handing down damnation or salvation comes from his perfection and consistency. God follows his own laws, thus he has total moral authority. But how many Bush supporters would freak out at such an argument?
In pure secular terms, the only result of giving discressionary power in 99% of all cases out there is to have the government not obey the law. The government must obey its own laws in order to ensure law and order, and having a law that says "the state shall do what it wilt, shall be the whole of the regulation of the government's conduct" is not a law. It's a license to anarchy in the pejorative sense of the word.
If our government is unwilling to even use its Article IV powers to shut down the borders in violation of NAFTA and all travel from rogue states and Saudi Arbia, then it doesn't need to even speak about new powers.
Domestic Spying Records Ordered Released
Domestic spying... ok.
There was this one time, when I was ten, I was hiding in the hall and I heard my mom and dad talking about my birthday present. That was pretty cool.
Then there was this time in high school when I hid in the principal closet and hoped to hear something interesting, like him having a secret affair or him reading the final exams out loud for fun or something, but he just made a phone call to his doctor and passed gas a few times.
Then there was this time I was in a Jefferies tube with Seven of Nine, and we were listening to the Cardassians who had taken over our ship, but I'm pretty sure that was just a dream.
There was some other stuff, but I don't remember most of it.
...the new democratic underground
We have to respect the Department of Justice's right to privacy.
Love the Third Amendment?
Why is it called 'Domestic Spying' when the monitored conversations occured between foriegn, self-proclaimed enemies of the United States who are engaged in armed conflict with us, and people inside the United States?
That's surviellence of an enemy, and given the Presidents power to wage war, it's not any stretch of the imagination that this sort of activity is within his authority.
The problem with this entire debacle is that you have people who are trying to apply the law-enforcement model of handling things to a war. A guerilla War, to be sure, but a War nonetheless. Do you think that Britain and the US got warrants when they were trying to break Germanys enigma code in World War 2? Do you think they thought twice about intercepting any communications between Germany and the US? No, because we wanted to ultimately hunt down and kill those we were monitoring, those they were associated with, and break the will of Germany to wage further war. It's not pretty but it sure as hell is necessary.
Those who revealed this program have made us less safe, and made it more likely that people who want to do us harm will evade our survellience- all for some petty political points (backfiring, by the way. A significant majority of the US population approves of this activity, and they will be voting next election) and yet another chance to scream "ChimpyMcBushHaliburtonCheneyCabal is EVIL!" Yeah, AQ and gang likely figured they were being monitored, but they didn't always act like it from some reports. Thanks for reminding them and shoving it in their face every single day.
If you don't want to be monitored by the government, then don't talk to overseas agents of an organization that has killed Americans, wants to kill more, and is killing our troops every week. It's not that complex.
As for the supposed 'rights' of those inside the US, terms like 'traitor' are really underused lately, or they are simply foreign agents of an 'enemy'- a simple concept that so many have foolishly convinced themselves doesn't apply to anyone any more.
Either way, once we've gotten all the information we need from them, we should deal with them like we did in the last war we resolutely won: try and execute the traitors, kill the spies, and hold the footsoldiers as prisoners of war until the other side capitulates and hostilities cease.
Good thing the safety of the nation doesn't lie in the hands of pontificating, apologist candy asses who lack the will and confidence to defend our civilization from threats- or we'd have already capitulated cravenly like Norway did recently (if the story is no longer on his main page, there are links at the bottom for previous posts).
-1 Troll? -1 Flamebait? Sure, why not- but we're not talking about civil liberties here, we're talking about monitoring the communications of people who want to kill us, and their agents in our country. The fact that so many don't realize this- or plainly deny it because of a visceral hate for the current administration- sickens me, and you have just read the result of that disgust.
To those who are worked up about this,
I question your seriousness about preserving our country.
I question your patriotism.
and most of all....
I question your judgement
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Hear! Hear!
Was this guy elected or appointed? Clearly these sort of judges will rub both parties the wrong way and therefore haven't a chance of being on the US Supreme Court, which isn't as it should be.
He may as well have come out and said "Sorry, guys, you're full of shit. Give us ALL the records, and soon."
Then he'll mysteriously die in his sleep or be invited to a "hunting" trip with Dick Cheney.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Cue the wingnuts screaming about activist judges.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
One thing about this is story is everybody has an opinion about what NSA is doing, and what the law is. Then of course there is the reality of what the NSA is really doing and what the law really is. General Hayen used to run the NSA, and was running it when the program was set up. He was the briefer of members of Congress (remember from both parties) on what the program was doing during his time at the NSA. Here is the transcript http:///http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_012306.h tml/>
of Gen. Hayden's appearance Jan. 23, 2006 with the Washington Press Club about this program.
Does a low level member of the Judiciary branch have the ability to override the executive branch? We have a black program, that is protected by multiple layers of secrecy. This is a construct of the executive branch. Can the Judiciary proclaim this level of secrecy null and void by decree and order classified information released?
How many billions of dollars will be now rendered worthless as all of the programs that would be revealed by complying with this order would now be rendered null and void?
Does anyone believe putting our sources and methods on display to our enemies (the El Quesos) is going to make this country any safer?
but to demand investigations in order to discover the identity of the leaker(s).
And what exactly is your problem with this? You can't honestly say that there should be no such thing as classified information, unless you'd like every poor SOB who's trying to keep on eye on various actually bad guys to be strung up and shot. The classification of intel methods and collected information exists specifically to allow it do what it has to do. If you tell Kim Jong Il what time of day the next high-altitude drone will be overhead which of his slave camps, or CC the lunatic president of Iran on the intel you're sharing with EU security people about his nuclear program... you're pretty much asking for the consequences, including the unpleasant deaths of the people living in those countries and working, with our spooks, to counter the influence/acts of the mullahs or the so-honorable KJI.
Assuming you don't actually refute the need for classified and covert activities on a number of fronts, then how can you complain about tracking down the people who deliberately leak such specific operational information? It sounds like you're more in the "classified is OK, but only on the stuff I think should be classified, and then definitely the administration should be investigating the people who leak it" camp. But that's not what you're saying, and should be. At which point, you should be more clearly spelling out what you think should, and should not be classified when it comes to intercepting a phone call from a known Al Queda-type contact in, say, Lahore, Pakistan to a used-only-once-ever cell phone that was in a batch of fifty or so bought with cash. You know, a cell phone that is untraceable to a person, will never be used again, and can never be part of a FISA warrant scenario by its very nature. Is reminding the guys using those phones that we know when the person in Lahore is dialing a number from that batch of disposable phones something you think should be leaked? Is that constructive, from your perspective?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Staples recorded record profits for the first quarter of 06. Amazingly, all the sales were from paper shreaders.
If it doesn't get overturned, Cheney will just threaten to shoot the judge in the face.
The Gonzales will just give him the same tripe they've been spouting on TV. Constitution, use of force authorization, blah, blah, blah. The Bush administration isn't going to let some piddly little district court judge push them around. Especially when they've managed to load the Supreme Kangaroo Court with their cronnies.
They'll claim it's necessary for "security" and there will be a 5 to 4 vote overturning the order and they'll go right back to doing whatever the hell they feel like. This will only further demonstrate how little the current administration values the rule of law. And if you haven't figured that out by now, you're never going to. For rest of us it will simply be one more razor slash on the Constitution.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
we are spying on them? Surely not!
I find that argument completly without merit.
No American is upset about our intelligence agencies conducting surveilance to protect us. I *WANT* them to be able to do that and am very grateful to those who have made it their life's work to protect my family and me. However, I am *VERY* concerned about the desire to conduct surveilance with no oversight or accountability whatsoever. People fought and died throughout American history to protect us from this kind of stuff, so we are not about to just take someone's word that it is OK. Not even when that person is our President.
Wait a minute ... you're saying President Bush pardoned I. Lewis (a.k.a. "Scooter") Libby?
I think you've gotta be misinformed on that one. Unless it was just totally ignored by every media outlet on the planet, and it's being blocked by Google... I don't think it's happened. Yet.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
to shred the undesirable stuff.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
ENOUGH SAID.
Amazing that the /. community has become so patently biased against technology and its uses. ;-)
/. folks seem to have failed to research all that has happened in the past (you know those who fail to learn from the past are destined to relive it). If you are wondering how long we have known that the US (and other governments) have been engaged in quite an impressive searching for needles in a haystack exercise??.
Also amazing that
Has anybody checked???
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/6/6929/1.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html
This information has been publicly available for more than a decade. I know for a fact I was reading about it on MOSAIC, the original browser, because I had some X screen captures of some of this same stuff from the early 1990's (yes pre Clinton). So, I would think it would be no surprise that we had the capability. So why all the "Ooooh evil big brother??" comments. Let alone blaming one administration 10-15 years later for deciding to use the capability.
Think about it geeksters. Now that a group of governments have cooperatively the capability to get ~90% all of communications on the earth, capture them, statistically analyze them, and escalate on some heuristic rule based basis to a human most of the electronic communications on the face of the earth, what does this cooperative do? They honestly wouldn't be able to avoid having the phone numbers on both ends, they in the case of modern cell technology even have the location on cells, certainly ANI info, certainly country codes, area codes, billing information, etc. They would also have a nicely digitized voice record of the conversation. And I would hazard could decode this speech > text and then keyword search the voice call to some reasonable degree of accuracy. The idea that they could do this for hundreds of languages, dialects, and accents, and even have some ability for voice printing is pretty no brainer. And further, I hope none of you believe that there are enough humans to work this without some massive filtering done totally automated.
Now, how do I determine the ruleset to abide by the law, in whose country (since it is a cooperative), and on what basis do I determine the relevance of the statistics used? How do I train my operators (the eavesdroppers) to ignore what calls (when a particular message is escalated) despite that parameters of it's content may have far exceeded some notional statistical threshhold for further examination of its content?
Is it the idea that they might listen to your conversations with a paramour the offensive part? Is the offensive part really that you may be reaching some other threshold? Is the offensive part that some of the posters might have some other guilt thing going on? Do those of you out there believe that FISA, or for that matter posse comatatis really means that National Technical Means cannot be used to find you to zero in on your potentially questionable behavior in some other way? Only the worst national security issues are ever going through FISA anyhow. Anything found by ECHELON of less serious character (but still reaching some threshhold) is most certainly, very quietly, and with multiple levels of indirection (never traceable back to ECHELON, it's called plausible deniability in the black world) passed to law enforcement as an anonymous tip from which to start an investigation (never as evidence). The thought that somehow you are safe from this kind of stuff is the worst kind of self denial. Members of congress found otherwise, and tried to protect themselves, NOT US, from faceless bureaucrats like J.
Classifying illegal activities isn't right.
Leaking information about classified & illegal government activities isn't wrong.
Nothing you said addresses that fundamental issue.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
A comment that disagrees with Slashdot group think and is still at +1! Enjoy the next few seconds.
On the bright side, at least the NSA might read your post.
Hey guys... does anybody else think it's a little strange that everybody at +5 seems to agree with each other? I'm no fan of wiretaps, but usually there is at least one very insightful individual with a different perspective... unless he's censored.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Nothing you said addresses that fundamental issue
The fundamental issue: people sitting in other countries have acted to kill a substantial number of people in the US and abroad. They loudly proclaim that they want to do more, and work to that end. Part of that includes placing calls (regarding funding and operational coordination) to supporters and collaborators. When people make those calls, it's not only legal to follow the trail, it's an obligation to. The constitution not only permits it, but empowers the CinC to perform, in his role of defense against just such attacks, to act. So, if you're a known Al Queda franchise operator in Lahore, phoning your US-based finance guy on a disposable phone from overseas, get over feeling like your privacy isn't what it used to be.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Ummmm, if you're afraid of terrorists, perhaps you shouldn't shop at a store called Target? :)
A batch of fifty or so piles of bullshit more like it.
A blog about stuff.
If Bush and company have done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to fear from a Congressional or Judicial inquiry into their actions.
However, you've once again sidestepped the issue. Instead of addressing it, you changed the subject.
Either you're trolling or you're very single minded. Either way, you don't seem to be able to conduct a reasonable discussion.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
>>this whole "domestic spying" thingy.
You people are either ignorantly parroting what the left-leaning media has labeled this issue or else you are deliberately misstating the case: It's not "domestic" when a person in the US receives or places calls to someone OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY.
The fundamental issue: people sitting in other countries have acted to kill a substantial number of people in the US and abroad.
You are wrong - that is not the fundamental issue being discussed. The issue is whether or not the president has the authority to spy on US citizens *without approval & oversight*. Bush thinks he does; many others disagree. This is a core issue of civil rights.
Twisting the argument into "but we need to do it to catch bad guys!" is a nice straw man. It's not about what "bad guys" want to do, it's about what rights law-abiding citizens have. There's plenty of people both in the US and the rest of the world, that want to kill people in a terroristic fashion (recall some examples), so at what point should we - the United States of America - draw the line between liberty & security?
As a point of reference, China doesn't seem to have had many problems with terrorism.
NSA only spies on people who would do us harm.
Get rid of the DEA and cut down the "intellectual property" laws to something reasonable, and then give the Feds the power they need.
If it weren't for the DEA, RIAA, MPAA, BSA, et all, I'd give the FBI and NSA all the power - I don't want a nuclear September 11.
With one out of two parties in the US, and the tapping act itself also happening in the US, I think it would be dishonest to say that it was clearly not domestic spying. It also certainly isn't quite the same as tapping Al Capone or Martin Luther King. Luckily, we have laws that cover this. They just were ignored.
I'm a Republican. You're a Tool. or maybe...a Troll. Not sure which.
You Sir are playing word games. A person inside of the US is being spied upon. That IS DOMESTIC spying. The fact that the OTHER party is outside of the US does not mitigate that fact.
I realize that the Bush administration and its shills don't like being caught in the act of domestic spying but word games won't make it any less egregious.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I don't think they transcribed every wiretap. They probably have a lot of taped conversations. What I'm interested in is what criteria they used to spy.
The Bush administration is fond of saying things like "If someone is talking to a terrorist..." They always try to justify their actions by suggesting that it only happens when a "bad guys" is involved. They hold people without allowing them due process. Something that our constitution guarantees as a right and justify doing so by saying that they only do that to terrorists and "enemy combatants" without ever giving the victim the chance to prove they are neither.
I'm betting that even though Bush claims they only spy on people who "talk to terrorists" when the truth comes out it will be anyone who talks to people in Iraq or other hot spots in the world.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I just wanted to point out that this is one of the stupidest concepts since the Romans made plates and cutlery out of lead.
The cartoonish axioms this statement rests on are:
This is related to the slightly less stupid idea prevalent in lazy journalism: "if both sides are mad at me, we must be doing something right". No, sometimes you're just that wrong.
That gives them less than a month to make 2/3 of the records disappear and fabricate records less detrimental to the president's image to take their place.
Except that the Bush administration would release any of the information immediately if it would suit the party interests. Look at Valarie Plame.
Giuliani is a fascist who was hated here in NYC when we finally were rid of him after the 2001 elections. But even then, he tried to use the 9/11/2001 planebombings as an excuse to extend his regime into 2002. When 2008 comes around, expect to hear a lot from New Yorkers who know that Giuliani is a fascist who would abuse these Bush loopholes efficiently, destroying American democracy irreparably.
--
make install -not war
The FBI reported that the thousands of wiretaps they were given by NSA led to nothing - but first the FBI had to spy on thousands of people in America. Those "US persons" are protected by the law from warrantless wiretapping.
But you don't care about those facts. You're parroting the RIGHT WING MEDIA, as is obvious to anyone who isn't a parrot, deliberately misstating the case in your prayers to Bush. Regardless of how it damages our country. Why do you hate America?
--
make install -not war
I agree with "ScentCone". Terrorists might kill some people. We must give up all of our rights. It's the only way to save our Freedom!
The link is an example (first Google hit I got, recalling the issue). Talk to anyone in law enforcement or intel - this happens constantly, but usually larger collections of phones are created by purchases of one or two at a time by mules that hit every convenience store for 20 miles along a stretch of highway. Drug runners use them constantly, they're a hit with illegal immigrants, and they often get carried overseas where they are frequently re-sold, cloned, etc. But the use of them domestically, as one-shot disposable phones, is a well established feature of both domestic and international bad guys. They're also popular as timers for bombs, of course - as seen in London and Madrid.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
A new Patriot Search Engine has been developed to make us all more secure. Use Patriot Search to ensure that your search terms are automatically submitted to the government for analysis, without the risk of judicial oversight, congressional enactments, or probable cause. This will make your even more secure from terror, terrorism and terrorists!
Surely if you are a true patriot with nothing to hide, you will use Patriot Search today. If you don't, then surely in the interests of security someone will have to find out why.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
As for shooting the messenger - it is the weak act of those who are more interested in appearances than results. A variety of intelligence failures (most spectacularly Oliver North selling weapons to Iran to give money to a drug dealer that required military intervention to fix - and more minor ones from other agencies even in 2005) and the reaction to them has shown that appearance is the point more than results.
"Domestic Spying" is what Hoover did. And there's every reason in the world to hate it; I'm with you in that regard.
But this ain't that.
This is war; their warriors are calling people in this country, and vice-versa. If we weren't doing this, *I* would call for impeachment. And don't give me that "I agree, but it's the method" argument; it doesn't hold water.
But in the old-world media's mind, "It's not the facts, but the seriousness of the charge" as you may recall. Like the 20+ Halliburton investigations, kicking people out of office for kind words...to Democrats...who were openly racist then, and still are, just not openly.
Other than the smoke-and-mirrors 911 commission, and the obligitory war declaration, has there been even one attempt on the part of the Democrats to actually *help* fighting terrorists? All I see is them protecting them with red tape and starting rumors.
But then, liberals are always the first to help an enemy. Look how they lionize Castro, Noriega, Stalin...remember Jane Fonda sitting on an AA gun, used to shoot down our planes in Vietnam? How about the 200-or-so people who went to Iraq to be human shields? They got there and found the schools and hospitals were full of guns and ammo, not kids and sick people. Saddam had mass graves of 400,000 civilians. And *we* are evil? How's that work?
So now, every move from the left is a means of making the war in Iraq go bad, or talking down the economy, so the Democrats gan get into office. It's about as rude as it can get.
It's getting old, guys- you have elections coming up, and you still haven't decided on your core values, as McAllif has reluctantly told us. "It's coming".
Core values, the platform of a political party, should never be something to conjur or take from polls- they're a part of who you are.
Can we move on, please?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Congress doesn't determine the president's authority, the constitution does. An act of congress can't legally change the powers that the constitution grants the president. Other than that, what you said has much merit.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Is what constitutes foreign intelligence gathering, which the courts have held doesn't require a warrant and is outside the bounds of our criminal court system; and what constitutes domestic spying that requires a court order.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
"Do the Democrats really want to return us to the days when al Qaeda could call its American operatives with impunity?"
There are current laws on the books that would allow a wire tap 72 hours PRIOR to a warrant being issued in these cases. That is sufficient.
This domestic spying crap is illegal and Emperor Bush and his cronies should be held accountable.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
With no oversight, who's to say they even kept any records of their domestic spying?
-Rich
Part 1, Sec. 1.4 (Classification Categories), Subsection (c) states:
Further, see:
The right to declassify rests with the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, under the direction of the Archivist and in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. Cheney is so not that guy.
Further, Part 4 (Safeguarding), Section 4.1 (General Restrictions On Access) states, in pertinant part:
Thus, only the CIA had the right to release the name of a CIA operative; not Cheney.
Now, does the Veep have the right to declassify on a whim (without following procedure)? Nope. Absolutely not! Part 3 (Declassification and Downgrading) Section 3.1 (Authority for Declassification), Subsection (b) states:
The NAS domestic surveillance program violates the FISA act which was specifically enacted in 1978 to clear up some of the questions left unresolved by the Supreme Court. It allows warrantless surveillance of conversations between "foreign powers" (and their agents) only if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. In cases where a call was placed or initiated from a US citizen ONLY the part of the conversation from the foreign entity could be taped. Unilaterally deciding to extend the spying to a US citizen is an authorization of domestic spying and IS ILEGAL.
- president.htmla udacity.html
"1. We are at war. congress' AUMF gave the Pres all the authority he needs to prevent another attack."
False. To be at war the Congress must make a formal declaration. The Authorization to Use Military Force is NOT a declaration of war. We are NOT at war. But even if we were the president's inherent power as commander-in-chief during wartime DOES NOT override the provisions of FISA.
The suggestion that Congress has no power to interfere in any way with the president's Article II commander-in-chief power is ludicrous. There's no case law to back this up and no reason to believe this except for the president's own apparent belief in his unlimited authority during wartime. (Which this IS NOT.)
I suggest you read: www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf
and http://volokh.com/posts/1135029722.shtml
and http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/which-is-it-mr
and http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/definition-of-
You may now consider YOURSELF informed...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The right to DECLASSIFY does not rest with the Veep IF he was not the original party who classified the information in the first place.
We may be aware of that... the VP however appears not to be.