The Chairman of the Senate Cover-Up Committee

[rodeodance]

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=1331575&ct=2041875

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Progress Report: The Chairman of the Senate Cover-Up Committee
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:27:18 -0500 (EST)
From: American Progress Action Fund <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: xxxx



by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney
Amanda Terkel and Payson Schwin

March 9, 2006


INTELLIGENCE
The Chairman of the Senate Cover-Up Committee

Earlier this week, the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), voted along partisan lines to avoid a clash with President Bush over his domestic spying program. The New York Times writes that the intelligence committee has become "so paralyzingly partisan that it could not even manage to do its basic job this week." By voting down a sensible proposal offered by Sen. John Rockefeller (D-WV) to comprehensively review the spying program, Roberts failed once again to demonstrate he has the leadership to conduct the required oversight of the Bush administration. As Rockefeller said, "This committee is basically under control of the White House." It was "no surprise that Mr. Roberts led this retreat;" he has been doing the "president's dirty work" repeatedly over the past few years in his efforts to stonewall investigations into important national security matters. The Progress Report has compiled a comprehensive report detailing how Roberts and his Senate Cover-Up Committee have obstructed investigations into the Bush administration's use of pre-war Iraq intelligence, the administration's complicity in acts of torture against detainees, and the White House's outing of a former CIA agent, among other issues. (Click here to see the report.) By failing to properly investigate important national security matters, Roberts has missed crucial opportunities to correct the administration's misguided policies in the war on terror.

FORMER BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT NSA PROGRAM'S LEGALITY: Coming on the heels of Roberts's approval of the Bush administration's illegal spying program, the Washington Post reports that a former Justice Department official raised concerns about the program's legality. David S. Kris, a former associate deputy attorney general who oversaw national security issues at the Justice Department from 2000 until he left the department in 2003, exchanged a series of emails recently with Courtney Elwood, a current associate counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in which he argued that the administration's "key legal justifications for warrantless spying are weak and unlikely to be endorsed by the courts." "I do not think Congress can be said to have authorized the NSA surveillance," Kris wrote. His objections are the latest in a series of high-profile former Justice Department officials known to have raised concerns about the program. Previously, it was reported that former Deputy Attorney General James Comey and former Attorney General John Ashcroft balked at authorizing the warrantless wiretapping program.

ROBERTS' COMPROMISE ALLOWS ADMINISTRATION TO BREAK THE LAW: Instead of first making a determination about the National Security Agency (NSA) program's legality, Roberts's compromise instead gives a green light to the Bush administration's illegal and unconstitutional warrantless spying on Americans. The proposal would establish a separate panel -- composed of four Republicans and three Democrats -- within the Senate Intelligence Committee that would receive classified briefings about the program, but would not have authority to make any changes to it for at least 45 days. The New York Times writes, "Faced with a president who is almost certainly breaking the law, the Senate sets up a panel to watch him do it and calls that control." According to the Roberts legislation, for 45 days, the NSA would continue to spy on phone calls and email messages of U.S. citizens if it had probable cause to believe one part to the communication was affiliated with terrorism. "The finding of probable cause would not be reviewed by any court." After 45 days, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be required to seek a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or explain under oath to the special intelligence panel why he could not seek a warrant. The proposal would not place any limit, however, on how many times the eavesdropping could be renewed. "Aside from the civil liberties dimension, there's an invitation here to the president to go on indefinitely with warrantless surveillance," said William C. Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University.

FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE IRAQ: In June 2003, as revelations about the Bush administration's manipulation of faulty Iraq intelligence began to emerge, Roberts announced he would conduct a "thorough review" of what the administration knew before it went to war. Roberts said the committee would look into "whether public statements and reports and testimony regarding Iraq by U.S. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information." While it took Roberts's committee just over one year to investigate and release Phase I of its report detailing the intelligence community's failings, the American public has waiting for almost three years for a completion of Phase II, which will look specifically at President Bush and Vice President Cheney's failings, among others. After Phase I was completed, Roberts pledged that Phase II was his "priority," adding "it will get done." By March 2005, just eight months later, Roberts changed his tune, stating that Phase II had been placed on the "back burner" and was a "monumental waste of time." After Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) forced the Senate into closed session in November 2005 to urge action on the investigation, Roberts again pledged to finish the report soon. But shortly thereafter, three intelligence committee members said Roberts refused to pursue "additional interviews and documents" needed to fully answer the "critical questions surrounding the use of intelligence in the months leading up to the war."

MORE STONEWALLING: Despite evidence that the CIA approved harsh interrogation techniques (including "waterboarding") against detainees at CIA-run facilities in Afghanistan and employed the practice of outsourcing torture to other countries, Roberts refused to investigate. The LA Times reported in March 2005: "Declaring that the CIA is 'not torturing detainees,' the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said...that he saw no reason for the panel to investigate allegations that the agency abused prisoners or transferred them to countries that engage in torture." When allegations began to heat up about the White House's involvement in outing former CIA covert operative Valerie Plame, Roberts pledged to hold hearings on the matter. "We intend to have a hearing," Roberts said. "And I think it would be a good idea to visit with her." But, just a short while later, Roberts declared there would be no investigation. "Senate intelligence has to be nonpartisan," he said. Also, refusing to compromise with members of his own committee, Roberts failed to pass the Intelligence Authorization bill this year on the Senate floor for the first time in nearly 30 years. In its final report, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that Congress needed to strengthen "congressional oversight to improve quality and accountability." But Roberts hardly knows the meaning of oversight. "It's 'oversight' when we know enough to ask our own questions," Rockefeller said. "It is 'undersight' when tell us what they want us to know."

ROBERTS SILENT WHILE INTEL AGENCIES CRUMBLE: Roberts has also been a silent voice when it comes to reforming and strengthening the CIA. Over the past year, a series of high-level departures have hampered the CIA, including the departures of the director of the Counter Terrorism Center, the second in command of the clandestine unit, two other directors of operations, and the chief of the Bin Laden unit. Roberts has also been silent as allegations have surfaced that the number three CIA official may have been involved in a bribery scheme. These reports, combined with information that National Intelligence Director John Negroponte spends three hours a day relaxing at a private club in Washington, D.C, begs the question about why Roberts has not been a stronger voice on the management issues involving our intelligence agencies.

[babylonsister]

1. Rec'd. Good article that explains what's going on with these

hearings, which hasn't been entirely clear to me. Thanks!

[redqueen]

2. They're seriously asking why Roberts hasn't been a stronger voice...

Seriously?

:rofl:

Well there can't be too many reasons, right?

- he's just an idiot who's scared of the big nasty mean neo-cons
- he's being compensated in some way for his traitorous behavior
- he's a spy and seeks to destroy our intelligence agencies

*sigh*

[classysassy]

8. The reason

behind door #2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ the congress is rife with crooks.

[BR_Parkway]

3. K&R!

[KoKo]

4. Kick and Recommend n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Subcomittee for Senate cover-ups.

Now there's a committee title that rings true.

[flordehinojos]

6. I JUST HAPPEN TO LOVE YOUR TILE,

SENATE INTELLIGENCE COVER-UP COMMITTEE.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[EVDebs]

7. DOJ is Dept of Justification, which should be prosecuting these cases n/t

[flordehinojos]

9. O:)

:)

[Uncle Joe]

10. Senate Cover-Up Committee is a most fitting title for them. n/t

[jbfam4]

11. The Death of the Intelligence Panel

The Death of the Intelligence Panel


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/opinion/09thur1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Published: March 9, 2006



The Senate panel has become so paralyzingly partisan that it could not even manage to do its basic job this week and look into President Bush's warrantless spying on Americans' international e-mail and phone calls. Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman, said Tuesday that there would be no investigation. Instead, the committee's Republicans voted to create a subcommittee that is supposed to get reports from the White House on any future warrantless surveillance.

It's breathtakingly cynical. Faced with a president who is almost certainly breaking the law, the Senate sets up a panel to watch him do it and calls that control. This new Senate plan is being presented as a way to increase the supervision of intelligence gathering while giving the spies needed flexibility. But it does no such thing.

The Republicans' idea of supervision involves saying the White House should get a warrant for spying whenever possible. Currently a warrant is needed, period. And that's the right law. The White House has not offered a scrap of evidence that it interferes with antiterrorist operations. Mr. Bush simply decided the law did not apply to him.



But the Republicans deserve the lion's share of the blame. It was Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney who hyped the intelligence on Iraq — and the Senate Republicans who helped them evade accountability. And it was Mr. Bush who approved the warrantless wiretapping, which is part of Mr. Cheney's crusade to expand presidential powers. (Unlike the rest of us, Mr. Cheney thought the lesson of Watergate was that the president was not strong enough.)

There are moments when leaders simply have to take a stand. It seems to us that one of them is when Americans are in danger of the kind of unchecked surveillance that they thought had died with J. Edgar Hoover, Watergate and spying on Vietnam protesters and civil rights leaders.