Posted by Mark Silva at 3:25 pm CST
Add Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism director in the White House, to a growing list of people accusing the Bush administration of breaking the law with its surveillance without court orders of people inside the United States communicating with suspected terrorists on the outside.
And Clarke, who left the White House in 2003 voicing complaints that the administration had not taken the threat of terrorism seriously before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, maintains the administration still is mishandling the war on terror. With its focus on a “tactical’’ battle with terrorists, he said today, the White House is losing a “strategic’’ battle for the hearts and minds of people in Islamic nations and Europe.
Clarke says he didn’t know about the National Security Agency’s surveillance of telephone calls and emails of people in the U.S. communicating with suspected terrorists, which the president secretly authorized following 9/11 and has re-authorized many times since then. That surveillance program only recently was made public.
“I think what they are doing is illegal,’’ Clarke said today at a forum of the Center for National Policy, a nonpartisan research center in Washington.
The White House maintains that Bush has acted legally, pointing to an Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Congress adopted in the days following 9/11 allowing the president to use “necessary and appropriate force’’ in a fight against the people or groups responsible for the terrorist attacks on the U.S., as well as the president’s standing constitutional authority to wage war.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said today that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will testify as such when the Senate Judiciary Committee opens promised hearings on the NSA surveillance – expected in February.
But Clarke and others maintain that the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA), which was enacted in 1978 to crack down on past abuses of domestic spying, requires the administration to seek warrants for any home-front surveillance that it is conducting in the war on terror. It could be, Clarke said, that the volume of calls and email that the NSA was tapping made FISA’s requirements too “cumbersome.’’ But if so, he said, the administration should have asked Congress to revise the law.
Tim Roemer, president of the Center for National Policy, a member of the 911 Commission that investigated the terrorist attacks and former Democratic congressman from Indiana, suggested that if the White House had gone to Congress – particularly in the emotional days following 911 – it could have gotten the authority it was seeking.
“They circumvented the law,’’ Roemer said, “and they may well have violated the law.’’
There’s already a chorus of critics accusing Bush of breaking the law with the NSA surveillance. Former Vice President Al Gore, Bush’s Democratic opponent in the 2000 election, said as much in a speech this week in Washington. Several lawyers, including former FBI Director William Sessions and former Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger, have said as much in a letter to congressional leaders.
If the law was hampering surveillance of suspected terrorists, Clarke said, “the choice is not to say the FISA law does not work for that, so we’re going to go around it. The only choice they had was to go to Congress.’’
Clarke had asked to leave the counter-terrorism office of the White House’s National Security Council in June 2001, he says, and in October 2001 then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice announced that Clarke would become the president’s special advisor for cyber security. By November, he was out of counter-terrorism.
Republicans have accused Clarke of soft-pedaling criticism for his previous boss, former President Clinton, who had missed opportunities to apprehend or kill al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden, and for unduly criticizing Bush. But Clarke also has deep credentials, having served as an assistant secretary of state for the first President Bush and deputy assistant secretary of state for intelligence for President Reagan.
“This administration has regrettably fought the battle against the Jihadists in a highly unproductive way,’’ Clarke said at today’s forum. “This administration has carried it out in such a way that we have lost support from the very governments needed.’’
With the invasion of Iraq and with American conduct in Iraq – including the abuses of prisoners at Abu Graib – he said, “What we have done is to systematically alienate both the Islamic governments and the European governments.’’
“When we look at all the al-Qaeda people we have rounded up and killed, tactically, we have been successful,’’ he said. But “because of our failure to concentrate on the battle of ideas… we are laying the seeds for a new al-Qaeda to grow in Islamic countries and in Europe… a new movement whose attacks will come five years from now… Where we have diminished support for the U.S., we have increased support for the Jihadists.’’
And with “our ham-handed approach to counter-terrorism at home,’’ violating Americans’ civil rights with spying, the administration has lost support at home, he said.
“We have to recognize that the probability of another major terrorist attack in the United States is pretty high,’’ said the man who served as national coordinator for security and counter-terrorism until the fall of 2001. “We’re laying the seeds for terrorists all around the world to come here and attack us.’’
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The issue is not whether the US Government should be intercepting and monitoring telephone and e-mail messages of suspected al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Of course it should be done. The issue is whether it should be done in apparent violation of FISA without court warrant. Maybe the problem is that our intelligence agencies are intercepting everyone's phone calls and e-mail traffic in hopes of finding the needle in a haystack that represents a real threat. I doubt any court would approve such widespread electronic snooping on US citizens.
Posted by: Joel Lamp | January 18, 2006 4:18 PM
It is my belief that President Bush has used the office of President to make up what ever he chooses for laws and by being the Commander and Chief as he tells us in all his speeches does belive he can do as he pleases! It is time that some one in congress took away his white horse and six shooter! I am a Rebpuican have always been one but this President makes me a shamed to say so! His mind is not on Governing the U.S.It is big head of power and that is all he wants! I feel yes we have to worry about terrorist this a fact sense 911 we know they can hit us again and perhaps they will! But to stir fear in the hearts and souls of every man women and child daily is not the way to run our greatr county!This man should be removed from office and the sooner the better! It is and awful feeling to fear your own Preident and wonder what he will do next useing his Commander and Chief as and excuse to do it! We are one step away from dictatorship in this county as long as he is in office! What are our senators and congressmen thinking off! Is there anyone out there to portect us from this man? lois Doetkott
Posted by: Lois Doetkott | January 19, 2006 7:07 AM
In WWII Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration similarly monitored communications between foreign terrorists and Americans. This is standard operating procedure in a war. This is recognized by the American people as a necessary component to the War on Terror. It has been upheld, repeatedly, by the courts, and merely follows guidelines laid down by the Carter and Clinton administrations. I used to be a Democrat, but their refusal to protect the security of the nation have made me join the growing list of Americans who are ashamed of that party.
Posted by: Bruce | January 19, 2006 8:38 AM
The Administration obtained permission from the FISA courts for wiretapping of over 2000 American citizens. The argument that a few dozen illegal wiretaps were undertaken to protect us from terrorists is fatuous. The FISA laws were set up precisely to prevent this kind of abuse, and there is no historical record of any previous Administration "circumventing" them. The greater issue here, IMHO, is the utter incompetence of the Administration in applying counterproductive tactics that have exacerbated rather than mitigated the threat of anti-US terrorism.
Posted by: StereoMan | January 19, 2006 11:41 AM
Joel: "everyone's phone calls and emails" are not being monitored. There's 280, 290 million of us... it'd take half of us listening to the other half to accomplish that. Don't hyperbolize, please.
Lois: I don't believe you're a Rebpuican, or even a Republican. And I don't believe you know much about history or how the government works. Bush is hardly the first president to tap wires without warrants. That distinction would go to the president in office when phone lines were invented. The Courts have ALWAYS back-doored a prez doing such things in the interest of national security, and called it "executive privilege". The only notable time the courts prohibited unwarranted wiretaps were when Nixon did it to get reelected. If you can't tell the difference between getting reelected and identifying a terrorist, you've got a serious problem.
And Bruce: the only thing wrong with yours is that they weren't called 'terrorists' when FDR tapped their wires; they were 'saboteurs' working for an enemy state. But congratulations on joining Reality.
Posted by: rwilymz | January 19, 2006 12:17 PM
To comment on the original entry about Richard Clarke's criticisms. As always, Clarke is both right and wrong. Clarke is notorious for being an Eric Cartman, "doesn't play well with others" type, and while he knows a great deal, he knows less than he believes he does and when one of his notions falls flat he doesn't suck it up and learn anything from it, he backbites.
He's been backbiting since being run out of the Bush Administration.
But he's still right about many things. The US has been approaching the War Against Terrorism ham-handedly, with the grace and finesse of an elephant wearing goalie pads. But that shouldn't surprise him [or anyone else]; it's how the US does most things.
You can cynically declare it moot that the partisanship over the NSA taps has divided the country along the same partisan lines it was divided on 9-10-01, but the fact is: Bush did himself no favors by inviting domestic scorn. The law in question even allows the prez to authorize the taps and then do little more than send a sticky note to the judge: "Oh, by the way, here's what I did...". That Bush didn't even do this much is a political problem of his own doing ... and that is stupid with a capital "dumb".
Posted by: rwilymz | January 19, 2006 1:38 PM
Shouldn't the article have mentioned that Richard Clarke admitted to voting for Al Gore, Bush's Democrat opponent, in 2000? And that Clarke has a book to "hype". These are two probable motivations--partisanship and publicity--for Clarke making such charges. Tribune readers deserve this context.
Posted by: Bruce | January 20, 2006 9:37 AM
Bruce is right--we do need context. How about this? Congress actually passed a declaration of war against the Axis powers in World War II. Bush did NOT convince Congress to declare war on Iraq--he got an authorization to use force, which is vastly different. Your comparison fails right there.
Your charges against Clarke are equally laughable. So what if he voted for Gore? You yourself said you changed parties. Should we not trust anything you say either based on whom you voted for? Voting choice alone is not a reason to dismiss Clarke's arguments. Also--news flash--Clarke's book has been out for, what, more than a year? He's not still out there on a book tour. Get a grip.
By the way, Bruce, this Democrat doesn't want cowards who are willing to give up civil liberties at the first sign of trouble in his party in the first place. Good riddance.
Posted by: chicagojason | January 20, 2006 10:13 AM
I use to believe in what the Bush Administration was doing was good for the country. But now I see like I think a lot of other Americans see, that the Bush Administration seem to have their own agenda. The war in Iraq was a huge mistake, and I truly believe it has fueled terrorism across the globe. I think the policies of the Bush Administration has, and is, hurting our country for decades to come. I use to consider myself a Republican but I can no longer support this administration, so I guess I will be one of those voters in November voting for a change in this country to try and get our once great country back on track. The other fact I failed to mention is , yes, Saddam is in jail, but Bin Laden the mastermine of Sept. 11 is making video tapes. Does anyone other than me see something fishy about this whole picture.
Posted by: claudia schultz | January 20, 2006 11:13 AM
What civil liberties are those you don't want to give up, there, Jason? How about privacy at the drug store? Nope: taken away by Democrats at the first signs of Meth-makers.
How about freedom from warrantless searches? Nope, taken away by everyboody at the first signs of:
school violence,
courthouse violence,
drunk driving,
hijackers. Haven't been free from warrantless searches at airports for thirty years, Jas...
Posted by: rwilymz | January 20, 2006 11:23 AM
I am a Canadian, wait give me a chance, I thought it was common knowledge that all forms of communication are monitored by the echelon program, you know the program that has other countries do your domestic spying for you. I think if there was a threat other countries would give you that intelligence information. George Bush is taking away all of the rights your ancestors fought so hard to get, They want to know everything about you, but if you ask the administration anything they treat you like a little kid and tell you more or less to beat it. As for Richard Clarke, the guy has to have some idea of what is going on serving three administrations. I find it hard to believe that Bush would not use wire tapping for for political gain, A guy that dumb can't make all the right moves even with Karl Rove. I think he is cheating just like in the Vietnam war and his schooling, this guy graduated from an ivy league school.When are they going to impeach Bush? This guy makes Nixon and Clinton look like fairies,they say that you face a terror greater than ever before, really greater than the cold war, WW1 and 2, plane hijacking is nothing new it goes way back, it happened so often they started making movies about it.Yes I am a huge Clinton fan, after watching travelgate,filegate,whitewater, Monica etc..
It drives me crazy, When is CNN going to grow some balls and take this guy to task? How can he let so many of your own people suffer after Katrina, even on that scale with the capabilities of your country it could be taken care of, oh yeah that takes money which Bush got rid of, money makes things happen, if a disaster happened in Texas Do you think there would be anyone without food or shelter immediately? Damn here goes Bush again, now he is willing to talk about thwarted terroist attacks whenever his polls sag.
Johnnyk
Posted by: JSchroeder | February 9, 2006 3:32 PM