| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Justice Department reviews role of lawyers in NSA spying |
| 2006-02-16 |
| The ethics office of the Justice Department has begun a review of the department's role in the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, a move that could shed light on internal dissension over the legal status of the secret program. The review, being conducted by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility, is the first formal government inquiry into the surveillance program since its existence was reported by The New York Times in December. The head of the office, H. Marshall Jarrett, disclosed the inquiry in a Feb. 2 letter to Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, who had joined three other Democrats in calling for an investigation. The letter was received Wednesday because of a delay for routine irradiation of mail sent to Congress, Mr. Hinchey's spokesman said. The Justice Department review was begun despite public assurances by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush that the program is legal and closely monitored by government lawyers. Congress has not opened any investigation of the program, despite the urging of Democrats, some Republicans and privacy advocates, who believe that the eavesdropping violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because it is conducted without court warrants. The Senate Intelligence Committee is scheduled to hold a closed meeting on Thursday to decide whether to conduct its own examination, but the White House strongly opposes an investigation, and Democrats say they are pessimistic that a full inquiry will be opened. The Office of Professional Responsibility investigates accusations of unethical or improper conduct by department lawyers. Justice Department officials played down the significance of the investigation, stressing that it will not look at whether the program was legal. "O.P.R. routinely looks into issues of this kind," said Tasia Scolinos, a department spokeswoman. "They will not be making a determination on the lawfulness of the N.S.A. program, but rather will determine whether the department lawyers complied with their professional obligations." Senior department officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft and his chief deputy, James B. Comey, voiced concerns in 2004 about the program's legal underpinnings. Those concerns led the department to balk at approving the program for a time and led the administration to suspend the program for several months, officials with knowledge of the deliberations have said. The concerns also prompted the N.S.A. to impose tighter controls on how it determined that someone suspected of having links to Al Qaeda should have their communications monitored. The Justice officials' concerns were noted in the letter sent Jan. 9 to Mr. Jarrett, of the Office of Professional Responsibility, by Mr. Hinchey and Representatives Henry A. Waxman and Lynn Woolsey of California and John Lewis of Georgia. The letter asked Mr. Jarrett to open an investigation to answer questions about the department's role, including when and how the department authorized the program, what Mr. Comey's objections were and what led to the department's auditing of the program in 2004. In his reply, Mr. Jarrett acknowledged the Democrats' questions, including "whether such activities are permissible under existing law." "For your information, we have initiated an investigation," replied Mr. Jarrett. Some critics of the N.S.A. program said that they welcomed the review, but that a broader outside inquiry into the program was still needed. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the Justice review should be "independent and free from the strong-arming of those interested in trying to paper over this illegal program." He said the inquiry was "potentially constructive" but would not substitute for "strong Congressional oversight." Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the decision was a "step in the right direction, raising some of the questions that need to be answered, but it doesn't go far enough." Lawyers for Adham Amin Hassoun, a co-defendant of Jose Padilla in a terrorism case, asked a federal judge on Tuesday to order the government to provide electronic intercepts by the N.S.A. that were not approved by a court. A second motion requests that the judge review intercepts collected under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and throw out any that appear to have been illegal. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #1 “…a move that could shed light on internal dissension over the legal status of the secret program.” This is an intriguing development. Especially in light of Senator Rockefellers’ rather odd closing statement when AG Gonzales testified in open session before The Senate Intelligence Committee. Rocky opined that he had suspicion that the NSA leak to the press came from the DOJ. (Admittedly without any proof) This prompted FBI Director Mueller to deliver an obligatory terse reply. He delivered his statement with his traditional stoic demeanor but you had to know his sphincter was constricting tight enough to crush a peach-pit. Then again it may be nothing now that Rockefeller has found a new flair for the melo-dramatic. (ala Iraq Phase II closed-door session on the Senate floor) |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-02-16 11:07 |