Justice Dept-Releases E-Mail Under FOIA Act-SNUBS WIRETAP LEGALITY!

[kpete]

Justice Dept Releases E-Mail Under FOIA Act-SNUBS WIRETAP LEGALITY!
Internal email snubs wiretap legality
Justifications 'weak'; Strategy reflects Cheney 'philosophy'; Illegal.

Justice Department e-mail on wiretapping
program released through FOIA

Former official describes legal defenses as "weak" and "slightly after-the-fact,"
Guesses they reflected "VP's philosophy… best defense is a good offense."

For more information contact:
Thomas Blanton or Kristin Adair
202/994-7000

Washington, D.C., March 9, 2006 - The Justice Department official who oversaw national security matters from 2000 to 2003 e-mailed his former colleagues after revelation of the controversial warrantless wiretapping program in December 2005 that the Department's justifications for the program were "weak" and had a "slightly after-the-fact quality" to them, and surmised that this reflected "the VP's philosophy that the best defense is a good offense," according to documents released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center and joined by the ACLU and the National Security Archive.

David Kris, the former associate deputy attorney general who now serves as chief ethics and compliance officer at Time Warner, e-mailed Justice Department official Courtney Elwood on 20 December 2005 his own analysis of the controversy, writing that "claims that FISA simply requires too much paperwork or the bothersome marshaling of arguments seem relatively weak justifications for resorting to Article II power in violation of the statute." The subject line of the e-mail was "If you can't show me yours."

On 22 December, after reading the Department's talking points as forwarded by Elwood, Kris commented that the Department's approach "maybe… reflects the VP's philosophy that the best defense is a good offense (I don't expect you to comment on that :-))."

On 19 January 2006, Kris wrote Elwood that the Department's white paper was "professional and thorough and well written" but that "I kind of doubt it's going to bring me around on the statutory arguments."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060309/index.htm
via:http://www.rawstory.com/