Share

Bush Spy Revelations Anticipated When Obama Is Sworn In

by: Ryan Singel  |  Wired.com

photo
More details regarding the Bush administration's domestic spying program are expected to come out once President-elect Barack Obama takes office. (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)

    When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, Americans won't just get a new president; they might finally learn the full extent of George W. Bush's warrantless domestic wiretapping.

    Since The New York Times first revealed in 2005 that the NSA was eavesdropping on citizens' overseas phone calls and e-mail, few additional details about the massive "Terrorist Surveillance Program" have emerged. That's because the Bush administration has stonewalled, misled and denied documents to Congress, and subpoenaed the phone records of the investigative reporters.

    Now privacy advocates are hopeful that President Obama will be more forthcoming with information. But for the quickest and most honest account of Bush's illegal policies, they say don't look to the incoming president. Watch instead for the hidden army of would-be whistle-blowers who've been waiting for Inauguration Day to open the spigot on the truth.

    "I'd bet there are a lot of career employees in the intelligence agencies who'll be glad to see Obama take the oath so they can finally speak out against all this illegal spying and get back to their real mission," says Caroline Fredrickson, the ACLU's Washington D.C. legislative director.

    New Yorker investigative reporter Seymour Hersh already has a slew of sources waiting to spill the Bush administration's darkest secrets, he said in an interview last month. "You cannot believe how many people have told me to call them on January 20. [They say,] 'You wanna know about abuses and violations? Call me then.'"

    So far, virtually everything we know about the NSA's warrantless surveillance has come from whistle-blowers. Telecom executives told USA Today that they had turned over billions of phone records to the government. Former AT&T employee Mark Klein provided wiring diagrams detailing an internet-spying room in a San Francisco switching facility. And one Justice Department attorney had his house raided and his children's computers seized as part of the FBI's probe into who leaked the warrantless spying to The New York Times. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales even suggested the reporters could be prosecuted under antiquated treason statutes.

    If new whistle-blowers do emerge, Fredrickson hopes the additional information will spur Congress to form a new Church Committee -- the 1970s bipartisan committee that investigated and condemned the government's secret spying on peace activists, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other political figures.

    But even if the anticipated flood of leaks doesn't materialize, advocates hope that Obama and the Democratic Congress will get around to airing out the White House closet anyway. "Obama has pledged a lot more openness," says Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which was the first to file a federal lawsuit over the illegal eavesdropping.

    One encouraging sign for civil liberties groups is that John Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress, is a key figure in Obama's transition team, which will staff and set priorities for the new administration. The center was a tough and influential critic of the Bush administration's warrantless spying.

    Among the unanswered questions:

  • Were there quid pro quo promises made to the phone companies and internet carriers who cooperated with the secret spying? For example, were co-conspirators promised lucrative government contracts?

  • Did the program appropriate the CALEA wiretapping infrastructure? Under CALEA, Congress forced telecoms to build surveillance capabilities into the phone and internet network, but promised it would only be used with court orders.

  • What did the first version of the surveillance program sweep into its net? In March 2004, a squadron of top officials at the Justice Department, including then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI head Robert Mueller, threatened to resign over the illegality of the program. The program was subsequently scaled back, but nobody knows what the NSA was doing that was bad enough to horrify Ashcroft.

  • What was the legal rationale for the surveillance? FISA explicitly made warrantless domestic eavesdropping illegal, but the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a series of memos justifying the spying anyway. The ACLU is fighting the Bush administration for access to the documents, as well as secret memos justifying torture.

  •     "It's difficult to see how Sen. Obama could call his administration transparent if his administration continues to suppress non-sensitive information that should have been released a long time ago," says the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer.

        The other looming question is whether, as president, Obama will continue the warrantless spying himself. Obama voted with the majority in Congress to legalize the Bush spying program in July, but the constitutionality of the measure is yet untested. An Obama administration is less likely than Bush to devise convoluted legal end-runs around the Constitution, according to Marc Rotenberg, the head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

        "Keep in mind that Obama is a constitutional scholar and has a deep understanding of checks and balance," says Rotenberg. "It's hard to imagine that an Obama administration would support ... warrantless wiretapping."

        With the financial markets and the economy in deep trouble, it's unlikely that Obama will quickly turn to the issue of warrantless wiretapping. But the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T over the surveillance could force the new administration to pick a side quickly. In December, a federal judge in San Francisco will hold a hearing on whether the retroactive immunity granted to AT&T and other telecoms as part of the FISA Amendments Act is Constitutional. Obama voted for the act in order to legalize the spying program, but tried unsuccessfully to strip out the immunity provision.

        EFF's Opsahl hopes that if EFF prevails in December, an Obama administration might let the decision stand, clearing the way for EFF's lawsuit to proceed.

        "If we are victorious in our constitutional challenge, I would hope the Obama administration would accept that loss and move on without an appeal," says Opsahl. "But we will have to see."

      

    »


    Comments

    This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

    We will have a President

    We will have a President that is a constitutional scholar rather than a dry drunk who with pride told the country that he enjoys being a "C" student. It may be that many new reports come out after January 20th. The question will remain should we democrats take the high road rather than the low road that we can be fairly certain the other team would have taken if the shoe was on the other foot. There is a down side to the high road. It is very difficult to feel justified. However, we do have a mission to unify the country and how can we do that while trying to bag the just former President and the President's Men. Just because "we can" may not mean that we should. There were so many laws of morality that were broken & so many more legislative laws that were broken. How much of the past will we need to vindicate in order to feel justified. I am not sure if we will ever win against the fascist elements but not playing the way they play may be a beginning.

    Bush has made us the enemy

    Bush has made us the enemy of much of the world. When traveling overseas, I often tell people that I am Canadian just because his "administration" was so corrupt and abusive. I TRULY hope that all the things he did will become an open book and that the extent of GW Bush and his Neo-Con cronies and cohorts will become known. He should be seen as the absolute worst President of this country in our history, since he is our own version of Mugabe. Maybe that kind of legacy will have positive influences on our next 10 Presidents and serve to regain some of our status on this planet. And maybe, just maybe, the 30% of the undereducated and ill-informed will come to see their Republican Party for the manipulative and care-only-for-the-rich group of people they are. May Carl Rove go to jail for the things that he has done. May John Woo be seen for the criminal that he is and not be on the faculty of a prestigious law school. May Gonzales and Mukasy be seen for their role as Bush's Lawyers and not a real part of the GOvernment of the United States of America. We need transparency and accountability and we need the media and Congress to play a most important role in how we operate.

    Is it impossible to say Bush

    Is it impossible to say Bush Lied?! Why let him off the hook by continuing to use 'misled'?! George W. Bush has committed many acts of treason and yet we politely skate around the fact of the matter that he is in fact a Domestic Enemy of the United States of America? Nothing short of War Crime Tribunals will serve justice to the Felon-in-Chief.

    Is Mr. Dussault kidding?

    Is Mr. Dussault kidding? Don't prosecute the criminals because it might be divisive? Not prosecuting would be divisive! These people(& I use that term loosely) are no better than the rest of us. They were put into office to serve all of us, not just big business and their buddies. They deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, ex-gov't officials or not. That does not give them a free pass. If the new administration doesn't go after these criminals, they are just as bad.

    The issue of "High Road vs.

    The issue of "High Road vs. Low Road" is a trap from which this democracy can not escape. There is no "High vs Low" here. The only issue here is one of defending the constitution and sending a clear message to our future and the world that we, as a people, will not tolerate a unilateral executive criminal running this country. We must bring these crooks to accountability if we are to save our Nation.