Yoo-holes…

Posted on Friday 23 May 2008


HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE APPROVES FUNDING FOR INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS AND CRITICAL OVERSIGHT

Two provisions of H.R. 5959 will enhance reporting to the full Intelligence Committee on intelligence activities. First, the bill would make certain portions of the covert action budget contingent upon full reporting by intelligence agencies to the whole Committee, on all active covert action operations. Another provision gives the Committee control over Presidential attempts to limit information to only the Chairman and Ranking Member, and clarifies what must be reported to the full Committee.
Yesterday, in reviewing what’s known of the bizarre logic of John Yoo’s opinion about F.I.S.A., I was musing about how the F.I.S.A. would have needed to be written to block the President’s ability to ignore the Law [in Yoo’s estimation]. I said:
What they’re talking about is the F.I.S.A. law that sets up a special court to oversee wiretaps. It says:
    … the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance … and the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted.
That sounds pretty clear to most of us, yet the government has set up an N.S.A. Domestic Surveillance Program that operates without warrant from the F.I.S.A. Court.  So how is that possible within the Law.  The Yoo-ism quoted above is presumably how they purport to get around the Law. It says, "Unless Congress made a clear statement in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that it sought to restrict presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches in the national security area – which it has not – then the statute must be construed to avoid such a reading." emptywheel uses the word "hackery" to describe this particular Yoo-ism. I would’ve chosen something a bit more fecal. He’s saying that "exclusive" [which to me means "only"] isn’t clear enough. I suppose the Law would have to be written, "the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance … and the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted – including restricting presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches in the national security area."
I was being facetious in suggesting how the law might be written. But now we read, "Another provision gives the Committee control over Presidential attempts to limit information…" So, I’m not so facetious after all. Here, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is doing exactly what would be required to plug the Yoo-hole. From Steve Aftergood’s Secrecy News:
“The obligation to report to the committees is not negotiable,” the report declared. “It is not an obligation that the President can ignore at his discretion. It is not an obligation that can be evaded by claiming that briefing the congressional intelligence committees will require other committees to be briefed. It is not an obligation that can be evaded by broad assertions of executive power.”
Whatever it takes… 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.