Slashdot Mirror
Rep. Jane Harman Focus In Yet Another Warrantless Wiretap Scandal
Many different sources are talking about the latest scandal surrounding the warrantless wiretapping program. Incriminating evidence against California rep. Jane Harman was apparently captured some time ago on a legal NSA wiretap. However, Attorney General Gonzales supposedly intervened to drop the case against her because (and this is where the irony meter explodes) Bush officials wanted her to be able to publicly defend the warrantless wiretap program. "Jane Harman, in the wake of the NSA scandal, became probably the most crucial defender of the Bush warrantless eavesdropping program, using her status as 'the ranking Democratic on the House intelligence committee' to repeatedly praise the NSA program as 'essential to US national security' and 'both necessary and legal.'"
The point is that this was NOT illegal. Agents were investigating foreign operatives using warrentless wiretapping. They caught the foreign operatives bribing a congresswoman. The Bush administration declined to press charges because said congresswoman supported warrantless wiretapping.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
no, in fact TFA says that's not the implication at all. Harman has been a long-time supporter of the warrantless wiretapping program.
The (newly revealed) crime is Antonio Gonzalez using his authority to halt a criminal investigation into a key political ally of the Bush administration.
The original crime is Harman offering a quid-pro-quo with a foreign agent. Which, by the way, was captured on a legally requested wiretap.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
actually she was caught on a legal wiretap and should have been prosecuted but was instead blackmailed into supporting illegal wiretapping. If this wiretap had been illegal we'd most likely never have heard about it.
RTFS ...
evidence against California rep Jane Harman was apparently captured some time ago on a legal NSA wiretap
LEGAL, as in, they used the existing FISA law passed by Congress in 1978. Not the Bush administration's made-up law.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Who says it was illegal? We may WISH it were illegal, we may get it declared illegal, it may in fact be unconstitutional, but the fact is, the agents performed what was at the time a LEGAL warrantless wiretap against foreign agents and happened to catch them bribing a congresswoman. They tapped FOREIGN AGENTS IN ISRAEL. There is no US law against tapping foreign phone lines.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The TPM piece on this http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/must_read_5.php mentions incidentally that the position in question had almost gone to Alcee Hastings but didn't because Hastings had earlier been removed "from a federal judgeship over bribery allegations." So Harman only had a chance at the position because the other major contender was corrupt. You've got to love the politicians.
How exactly does this qualify as treason under the US Constitution?
From the US Constitution Article III Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
As I understand it they went to FISA to get a retroactive warrant. A nice little provision of the law.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
Thank you. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing people drop the 'T' word without any idea of what it actually means. It's this kind of stupidity that makes me think the Framers were correct to define Treason within the Constitution so it couldn't be used for political purposes.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The article mentions attaining a FISA application
Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss reviewed the Harman transcript and signed off on the Justice Departmentâ(TM)s FISA application ...
I believe that makes this a legal wiretap under the 1978 FISA law.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
In this case, the underlying article reports that: "What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington." Key words are "court-approved."
The Fourth Amendment states that:
Once the executive branch has convinced a judge that probably cause exists, and the judge has issued the warrant, there is nothing preventing the executive branch from using that information in court.
Now there is a real question as to whether wire tapping a member of congress (who herself was not under investigation) is a good idea, but that's not really the issue. I'm actually somewhat sad to hear about this as Jane Harmon is/was a very competent and thoughtful member of congress -- particularly on port security issues.
They just offered to lobby Pelosi to give her the seat.
For definitions of "lobby" that include large "campaign contributions".
It would be a substantial understatement to say that an offer from some random guy on the street to "lobby" on Jane Harman's behalf would be enough to convince Jan Harman to intervene in a federal investigation. Clearly, AIPAC (and probably Jane Harman) thought that an offer to "lobby" was a major incentive. That is, either AIPAC was under the delusion that they have major pull in congress or AIPAC actually does have major pull in congress.
It ain't. "Democrat" is the noun. "Democratic" is the adjective. Uppercase 'D' in print, or implied in speech.
When the phrase "Democrat party" comes out of somebody's mouth, it's a sure sign that stupid's going to follow rapidly.
Jane Harman was caught sheltering spys. That is treason.
I don't remember very many prominent Democrats opposing the NSA's illegal spying program. In fact many prominent Democrats were in favor. I remember a lengthy and uncompromising campaign against these kind of things by Chris Dodd (D-CT), but I also remember that Harry Reid (D-NV) decided to ignore the hold that Dodd placed on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Ignoring holds placed by Senators is not generally done. And then a lot of Democrats voted to end debate on the amendments to the act. I think you're giving the Democratic party too much credit for opposing the lawlessness of the Bush administration. They don't oppose lawlessness per se.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
Twitter is not a form of communication.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Here's an excellent in-depth article on who did who..er..who did what.
http://static.cqpolitics.com/harman-3098436-page1.html
No, the fishy part is that the Bush admin apparently blackmailed her into supporting the warrantless program.
No, the fishy part is that the Bush administration blocked the prosecution of one of their allies. Her comment to the foreign agent, "this conversation never happened," was fishy too.
You don't understand the situation if you think Israel's support in the US is composed solely of Jews. I think they're probably a minority of pro-Israel faction. A huge subset of American Christians are dedicated to helping Israel.
Seriously, many of the things the public blamed Bush for are the actions of Congress, which has been under Democratic control for several years.
If by "several" you mean two. The Republican party took control of Congress in the 1994 election (I think, maybe it was 1996), and kept it until the 2006 election. The Republican-controlled Congress started the vast majority of the actions that we've been complaining about. Unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress hasn't undone nearly as much of it as we had hoped they would.
She just said she'd do her job to help a particular person, in exchange for someone helping her.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
In fact, that literally is the scope of their investigation.
That is pretty much the sole reason to counter-spy on 'friendly' spies. I mean, they're not running around blowing up our nuclear power plants or assassinating people.
No, 'friendly' spies are running around collecting influence by doing favors, and creating people in powerful positions beholden to them. That's all they do, have a network of people.
Of course, people seem resistant to make the next logical connection here: Was the fact they happened to have dirt on someone supporting the administration's lawbreaking a coincidence, or did they deliberately get it just in case she decided to stop supporting it?
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Jonathan Jay Pollard
Ben-Ami Kadish
Long list of incidents here.
Unfortunately, the Democrat-controlled Congress hasn't undone nearly as much of it as we had hoped they would.
Strange use of the word "undone" there. Considering FISA 2008 (aka, The Telcos/Bush/Everyone get-out-of-jail-free card) was passed by a D congress.
Face it, the two-party system was OK while it lasted, but it's now time for a REAL change.
"I mean, who increased spending the most and the second most in the history of the United States?"
Obama and then Bush II.
"Who signed the bank bailout bill?"
Bush II after first meeting with President Elect Obama to ensure agreement, so as to not waste time by making a lameduck move that would immediately be reversed.
"So apparently it means 'liberal, but we don't like certain minorities.'"
I could act like a bigot and stereotype you, too.
"People who are constitutional conservatives are few and far between."
Or possibly they don't run in your political circles.
I am rather pleased with myself for correctly parsing this story in 2006. It was clear to some at the time what was really going on.
"In sum total: The FBI has the evidence already. The shape of spy scandals to get exposed depends on who runs the Intelligence committees, and Reyes seems like the only good choice" etc.
--hongpong.com