Video: DNI Michael McConnell takes on the FISA expiration
posted at 4:40 pm on February 17, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell appeared on Fox News Sunday today to address the expiration of the Protect America Act this weekend. He also discusses the assassination of Imad Mugniyah and whether there are known al Qaeda cells in the US.
WALLACE: I want to get into all of those in a moment, but let me ask you a specific question, because as you know, there’s kind of a general issue here.
The president, in a clip we played at the top, said that the country is now more in danger of attack. Here’s what leading Democrats are saying, and let’s put it up.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says, “The president’s comments are wrong, divisive and nothing but fear-mongering.” Senator Ted Kennedy says, “The DNI’s,” that’s you, “The DNI’s latest comments show yet again the shamelessness of the administration’s tactics.”
Question: Is the White House making the situation sound worse than it really is?
MCCONNELL: Chris, President Bush is repeating advice that I’m giving him. As you know, I am not a political figure. I am a professional. I’ve been doing this for 40 years.
And our situation now, when the terrorist threat is increasing because they’ve achieved — Al Qaeda’s achieved de facto safe haven in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan — the threat is going up.
And therefore, we do not have the agility and the speed that we had before to be able to move and try to capture their communications to thwart their planning.
WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about that. We’ll get to the telecoms in a moment. Let me ask you first, though, as you pointed out at the beginning, under the law that was passed in August, you had the ability, and you exercised that, to issue orders that allowed you to monitor terrorism suspects — communications involving alleged terrorist groups.
The law has expired as of midnight. But those orders to monitor are valid for a year, so they stay on the books and allow you to monitor them till at least August.
And the argument the Democrats make is that if there’s somebody new that springs up, some new group that you haven’t already covered, that you can go after them over old existing law. So they argue you haven’t lost any operational capability.
MCCONNELL: Chris, last summer we were in extremis, because we had lost under the old law about two-thirds of our capability.
The issue is it’s very dynamic, and the FISA court had ruled…
WALLACE: When you say dynamic, you mean that new groups are springing up, new possible targets?
MCCONNELL: New information, new personalities, new methods of communicating.
So when the program was returned to the FISA court in January of ‘07, initially we had coverage that we had asked for, but over time, because technology had changed and the law of ‘78 — it had not been changed, because technology had gone from a wireless world to a wired world.
Foreigners communicating in a foreign country — more than likely the communications would pass through the United States. Therefore, the court said if it touches a wire, consistent with the law, you have to have a warrant.
Now, a warrant means probable cause, which is a very time- consuming process to go through. So we were in that situation last summer. We passed the new act to make it — improve our situation. That act has now expired.
WALLACE: Isn’t the central issue here that you’ve lost your power to compel telecommunications companies to cooperate with you and also your ability to offer them legal immunity?
Again, the Democrats would say, “Look, if the cooperation is legal, they don’t need legal immunity.”
MCCONNELL: Exactly right. The issue now is there’s uncertainty because the law has expired and the law of August, the Protect America Act, allowed us to compel — compel — support from a private carrier. That’s now expired.
So we can make an argument to a court but, you see, that makes my point. If I’m in court arguing for an authorization, then I’m missing a dynamic situation.
McConnell is, as he says at the top of this clip, not a partisan hack as the Democrats often portray him. He’s an intelligence pro who has 40 years of experience, working for both Republican and Democrat administrations. The Democrats characterizing him as a partisan are aware of his history and yet they’re misstating it. What else, then, are they misstating? Pretty much everything.
As of midnight this morning, intelligence gathering powers are now back to where they were before the Protect America Act was passed in August 2007. At that time, according to McConnell, we had lost about two-thirds of our overseas collection capacity because of the FISA court ruling which, for the first time in history, required court authorization for monitoring foreigners outside the U.S. who contact other foreigners outside the U.S.
The Protect America Act reversed that ruling for six months. It is now expired. We cannot collect on new targets overseas without going to the FISA court and showing probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign power. As foreigners outside the U.S. have no U.S. legal protection (or at least didn’t until the FISA court ruling), and as the federal courts have no jurisdiction outside the U.S., we are not supposed to have to make any showing whatsoever to collect intelligence overseas.
When you go from no restrictions to no collection absent probable cause, that represents an enormous drop off in capacity. It’s that simple. Democrats who claim that people like McConnell are engaged in partisan fear-mongering are talking nonsense. And as McConnell noted this morning, every day we don’t fix this problem, the problem — the investigative leads you don’t get, the connections you don’t make, the things you don’t learn but which you should know — metastasizes.
To listen to the Democrats on this is to hear tales of the US government spying on US citizens without warrants for no good reason, but the truth is much more complex: The government has used the technological position that the US is in to listen in on terrorists overseas communicating with each other and with possible contacts and operatives within the US. The expiration of the Protect America Act puts us back to a 9-10 world. We all know how that turned out.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I smell fear in the democratic party. The are still in the “Bush is evil” mode but can they govern on that issue ?
Apparently they are trying to.
William Amos on February 17, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Thanks dems for giving Mav another round of ammunition. Hmmm. A War Hero talking about the importance of keeping us safe. I wonder how that will play with middle america?
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 17, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Many on the left attack Bush for being a polarizing figure but its true certianly that the left has become very polarized. While Republicans are struggling to deal witha moderate winning its nomination the democrats are on the verge of throwing out its moderate (and is hard to say that about Hillary) for someone even more left than her.
William Amos on February 17, 2008 at 4:54 PM
This is such a losing “issue” for the democrats. John McCain needs to hammer them RIGHT NOW for this. I ain’t heard squat from him yet about it. Lead us, Maverick, and we might follow…might.
SouthernGent on February 17, 2008 at 5:02 PM
SouthernGent on February 17, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Reconcilliation, then victory!
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 17, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Radical lefties play politics with national security again. The enemy within is more dangerous than anything foreign.
petefrt on February 17, 2008 at 5:08 PM
It’s hard to know who’s right here. According to this article in the Washington Times, “existing warrantless surveillance” begun under the [now-expired Protect America Act] may continue for “up to a year;” the government can obtain a warrant from the FISA court “within minutes;” and the government may even act without a warrant and then apply for one retroactively within three days.
If that’s so, then we are not in any imminent danger.
paul006 on February 17, 2008 at 5:12 PM
My whole complaint with the interview is the man is such an egghead(no offense).
‘We will be in court while the situation is dynamic’…
Three-quarters of the public just said ‘huh?’. Locker room talk……’We will be in court while the bomb goes off’ would have been a much more effective way to get his point across.
Limerick on February 17, 2008 at 5:14 PM
This is very disturbing stuff. The Dems have made a conscious decision to put political rhetoric above the safety of the country. Read Andy McCarthy over at National Review. And be sure to read the internal links. This is close to treason.
Longhorn Six on February 17, 2008 at 5:15 PM
McCain does need to hammer this issue now. If for no other reason than his Commander And Chief needs his help on it. Turning it into a campain issue will force the Dems to back down.
Time to step up and show us you deserve our respect John!
conservnut on February 17, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Except you can’t get a warrant for mass signals capture. The very key for us trying to discover new terrorist activity.
Skywise on February 17, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Speaking of democrats… The Messiah graced us today in North Carolina. He was visiting apostle John.
SouthernGent on February 17, 2008 at 5:24 PM
That’s a good point. But does the Protect America Act allow for the warrantless capture of mass signals? If so, that’s a point even the White House doesn’t make.
paul006 on February 17, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Well, let’s not forget - according to Nancy Pelosi, this “is not a war to be won, but a situation to be solved.”
CP on February 17, 2008 at 5:32 PM
A few weeks ago, every other comment was on how folks were sitting out the general to spite the Mav. Now, as the dems self implode with their super delegate tug of war and policy gaffs just like FISA, those screams have turned to wispers. It’s good to see my work here is bearing fruit.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 17, 2008 at 5:37 PM
The Dems, the liberal left and the MSM have given aid and comfort to the enemy for the last four years. Why would they stop now?
Travis1 on February 17, 2008 at 5:37 PM
The Dems have engaged in traitorous activities for decades, the swimmer meeting with the commies, Pelosi meeting with the Syrians, etc etc. They are not on the side of America at all.Why this is not being hammered by ANYBODY in the GOP astounds me.
bbz123 on February 17, 2008 at 5:40 PM
I wish Wallace used the whole interview time with McConnell, he actually had some things important to
sayteach us.Speakup on February 17, 2008 at 5:48 PM
McConnell needs that retroactive lawsuit protection to get the communications companies to cooperate. The democraps would rather protect profiteering ACLU lawyers than American citizens. They are by their lack of action, aiding our enemies.
Zorro on February 17, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Yeah they do. First bullet point and first point in how the law modernizes FISA.
Skywise on February 17, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Ever notice yesterdays evil Hitler nazi is the lefts hero today and visa versa?
If anyone says anything contrary to the lefts pet belief of the day, they are instantly characterized as an evil criminal to be destroyed and when a sworn enemy happens to agree with their supplied narrative du jour they are instantly elevated to unquestionable hero status.
i.e. If General Betrayus were to disagree with Bush on some important aspect his “expert” and “hero” credentials would be instantly restored.
Topsecretk9 on February 17, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Ever notice yesterdays evil Hitler nazi is the lefts hero today and visa versa?
Topsecretk9 on February 17, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Remember, in the 30’s the left loved Hitler.
- The Cat
MirCat on February 17, 2008 at 6:16 PM
freaking idiots…. mccain…. hey its not that hard to say his name if you hold your nose while you say it.
custer on February 17, 2008 at 6:28 PM
I am amazed, but thoroughly unamused that the liberal press and members of both the House and Senate are fighting revisions to FISA to help protect American citizens, under the guise of protecting Americans’ privacy, and yet, where is all the crying about electing another Clinton? Especially in light of the fact that the first Clinton authorized Echelon, which was outright a domestic spying program (http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/01/under_clinton_ny_times_called.html). In fact, our favorite fishwrapper (the NY Slimes) defended the program as “legal” and even “ethical”. It’s amazing how a program that was outed by a foreign media outlet and revealed to be listening in to all of our voice and text data communications is never given a second thought when it comes out of an environment where the terrorist threat against America wasn’t very high, or even taken seriously by people outside of Tom Clancy (and that was just to have something to write his over-long books). Let a Republican come up with a program that’s similar (or even a natural outgrowth of Echelon), in a climate of confirmed terror in America, and the next thing you know, the “Christian Right” has been revealed to be the Illuminati, and they’ve been using the GOP as a front. Truly pathetic. I’m telling you: once terrorists choose a good target (like San Fransicko, Berkley, the DNC convention, or something similar), I just wonder if liberal priorities will suddnely change. I wonder if these people (the liberals of America and the UN) would’ve protested World War 2 as America
sticking it’s nose where it doesn’t belong’, compounded with a ‘and damn the Jews; they shouldn’t have been in Germany’s homeland causing trouble, in the first place, or Hitler would’ve left them alone’ rationale.
Virus-X on February 17, 2008 at 6:40 PM
…and after Hitler they moved on in even greater numbers to Stalin admiration.
jgapinoy on February 17, 2008 at 6:42 PM
And now everyone refers to pro-abortion, gun-control, big-government, pro-union Adolf as “right-wing”.
jgapinoy on February 17, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Skywise,
The first bullet point says that the PPA accounts for changes in technology, and excuses the government from the need “to obtain a court order to collect foreign intelligence information against a target located overseas.” To me, a target doesn’t suggest mass signals capture. It suggests an identifiable person of interest.
The White House fact sheet also says:
Again, that language suggests a specific target, not mass signals capture.
I did a Google search on “Protect America Act + mass signals capture” and got only one return: This thread!
If you’re right about this, it’s a point the White House should make clearly and explicitly, because it’s a strong one.
paul006 on February 17, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Needed fixin’
Forty years. That’s about how long Ted Kennedy has been in office.
fogw on February 17, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Before McConnell, Wallace interviewed Gov. Strickland (D-OH). When Wallace asked him if his support of Hil was linked to his hopes of being the VP candidate on her ticket, he almost fell apart. Did anyone notice how hyper animated he became? For awhile there it looked as though his head was going to shake off his shoulders. Does this guy always shake like that?
Who’s the hyper animated entertainment correspondent on Fox and Friends that reports from London? Strickland must be his twin.
petefrt on February 17, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Yeah I noticed it too. Couldn’t say for sure but looked like an affliction….could be nerves I guess.
Limerick on February 17, 2008 at 7:12 PM
An affliction maybe. It was so pronounced that I was wondering about that. But affliction or not, it seemed to be Wallace’s question that set it off. Struck too close to home, I’m thinking.
petefrt on February 17, 2008 at 7:16 PM
I hope I’m wrong but it reminded me of my late Mother, she had Parkinson’s…
Zorro on February 17, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Just Googled Strickland and Parkinson’s Disease. Just a quick glance, but no evidence of it that I saw.
petefrt on February 17, 2008 at 7:41 PM
So the ABC’s of this is:
-any future terrorist attack in the U.S. is the Democrats’ fault.
Till they remove head [A] from anus [B] & come back to reality [C].
profitsbeard on February 18, 2008 at 1:30 AM
Novak has the inside story.
Political donations from the trial lawyers are more important to the Democrats than security from terrorist attacks.
http://townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/02/18/torts_and_terrorism
slp on February 18, 2008 at 4:00 AM
What is it that Nancy is personally worried our intelligence agencies might overhear? Terrorist attacks against Americans certainly isn’t her biggest concern.
DannoJyd on February 18, 2008 at 6:44 AM
Before viewing this interview, I had figured that politically and diplomatically, mano e mano, Bush had simply made known without any go-betweeners that his response to another direct hit on US soil would be a barnstorm nuclear attack on suspected nations, whether proven guilty or not. GWBush told the world, “you’re either with us or against us” and that terrorists would be treated alike, whether independent agencies or as elements tolerated within national governments.
So these “evil-doers” await Bush’s retirement from office. Now they seem to be served cake from our Congress, conspiring as they waited for our legal defense to melt.
It is terrorist logic to create havoc during major political campaigns, destruction timed immediately preceding election day. Most people crumble under pressure. Remember Spain. Look at America’s democratic voter turn-out for primaries overwhelming republicans in number. Whether something is planned to happen immediately before, or as with GWB immediately after an election, something is planned to happen. Whether we know it or not is the matter at stake.
This general election will determine not only our immediate fate and survival as a movement within a party, but our survival as a nation. E pluribus unum needs to reference our determined will to preserve our Constitution that parented our American Liberty.
If FISA matters, contact your Congressmen and Senators who do the voting. It is not right to leave the onus on the President or presidential candidates when the required vote is CONGRESSIONAL.
maverick muse on February 18, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Maybe concern over the seating arrangements at the wedding?
Wade on February 18, 2008 at 8:50 AM
The day may not be far off when it will be time for the people to string up the worst of these trial lawyers (to include the ACLU, those 1300 or so lawyers representing the 300 or so internees at Guantanamo, and these creeps suing the telecoms for helping to defend our security) from lamp-posts.
sanantonian on February 18, 2008 at 10:22 PM