Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, May 19, 2006

NSA: ThinThread included auditing to comply with FISA

The current reckless war criminals in the White House want you to incorrectly believe that what they're doing is lafwul.

What they don't want you to know is the program -- that they cancelled, called ThinThread -- included the very auditing fuctions that would ensure compliance with FISA.

Trent Lott's assertions that this reckless war criminals use of NSA is "legal" is absurd. FISA is clear.

The real issue is why, despite the known requirements which were included in the now cancelled program, has the Congress refused to engage in oversight.

The issue isn't whether there was or was not a cost overrun. The issue is that regardless the program performance, Hayden and others in the intelligence committee were well positioned to know two things which do not match:

  • 1. There was a clear requireemnt to comply with FISA; and this requirement was in cluded in the NSA's program baseline; and

  • 2. Once the program was cancelled, this did not relieve the President of the requirement to follow the law.

    * * *

    The Attorney General and the President have a problem. They would have the public and Congress believe that their actions -- violations of FISA -- are acceptable. This is absurd. They know full well what the law is; and they knew, or should have known, that by cancelling the program -- but not eliminating the requirement -- would mean that "their activities" would not meet the FISA and Constitutional requirements as required by statute.

    They cannot credibly assert that what they're doing was a "best effort," or that they "intended" to comply with the law. On the contrary, they knew the law wasn't being followed; and they knew the existing technology that they were using didn't meet that lawful requirement.

    What's more absurd is Congress wants to "move on" and "not worry" about the legal issues. This is crap. They have a job to do -- protect the Constitution. They're not doing their jobs, they know it, and they're violating their oath of office, 5 USC 3331.

    * * *

    The problem is that by removing the requirement -- which included the aditing function -- ThinThread becomes the needed evidence to show the President well knew what was required; and that by refusing to comply with FISA, the President's budget included a plan to spend money for illegal things, which did not meet the statutory requirements. [Violating Article II, Section 9, requiring money to be only spent on lawful things.]

    This is called procurement fraud. There's no defense for the attorney general becuse he was well positioned inside the White House as White House Counsel, he knew the law, and he also knew or should have known what the FISA was and how the NSA activites related. This song and dance about NSA doing "independent reviews, without the FISA court as required, to "ensure" complance" is non-sense. The reason we have a majistrate and warrant requirement is to ensure that these types of abuses are nipped in the bud, not allowed to flourish as they have under this reckless, negligent President.

    Bottom line: Congress has failed to dig into ThinThread, and probe into the specific software specifications which included the auditing requirements. If your staffers were hired on their basis of competence and familiarity with software specifications, not political connections, we might have some real questions from the staffers, and some well documented audits.

    Not these war criminals.

    * * *

    Congress needs to dig into the software specificications for ThinThread; and find out exactly why those known requirements -- which would met the Constitutional and FISA statutory intent -- were ignored, taken out; and then another system -- which did not meet the FISA requirements -- was deployed at the same time that Congress was saying they "had no clue." By ignoring the clearly promulgated FISA and the clearly established rights in the Constitution, the AG and President have violated their oaths, and may lawfully be stripped of any expectation of immunity; or any credible claim that they can invoke "proviledge" to avoid a trial.

    All claims of "sate secrets" are merely ruses, and dubious with one goal: To avoid accountabiltiy for their reckless disregard for the clearly promulgated law of the land. The President, Vice President, and attorney general are actively engaged in unlawful obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and intimidation to suppress evidence otherwise needed to protect the Constitution from their reckless, negligent abuse of power and repeated, wilfull violation of the laws.

    * * *

    Check out the testimony from earlier this year, at the Feb 2005 hearings before the Senate intelligence Committee. You'll see issues that they pubilc commented on -- like Rendition -- that the court is being asked to believe, "We can't hear evience on." It doesn't add up. Again, the issue sis that they've moved people around, made inconistent statements, and beore the Committees they have one agenda; while before the court they're sayign something else.

    What's needed is a good scrub of the prior testimony in open; and then carefully compare those comments with the new testimony Hayden has given bofore Judiciary. You'll see things that are not jiving related to Iraq, intelligence, and the 9-11 legacy. They can't keep their stories straight because the original story is based on falsehoods, lies, and reckless disregard for the truth.

    Hayden keeps saying, "Oh, I didnt know what was going on with inteligence. I was really upset. I was in the dark." Huh? How can someone be "upset" about soemthing that they "didn't know about"? The real answer is that he failed to remove himself at the time; and no rasonable person would be "upset" at something that they had no knowledge of. Rather, he's feeling guilty for not doing wha he should have done: Stood up to the President and said, "You're war criminal. I resign." Hayden would rather have power than assert the rule of law, follow the law, or do what the law clearly requires: Ensure the warrantrs were consisent with FISA; not do what he's doing in making excuseds to ignore the clear FISA requirements which were contanied in the procurement program Hayden botched.