|
|
|
|
|
Defending eavesdropping program, Bush aide also suggests data collecting legal Stephen Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser defended the NSA eavesdropping program on a Sunday morning talk show, and without confirming or denying the USA Today article which revealed that phone companies were turning over phone records suggested that the claims made were legal. "I can't, sitting here, confirm or deny the claims that are in the USA Today story, but it's very interesting what that story does not claim," Hadley said. "It does not claim that the government was listening on domestic phone calls," Hadley continued. "It does not claim that names we passed, that addresses were passed, that content was passed." "It's really about calling records if you read the story," said Hadley. "Who was called when, and how long did they talk?" "And these are business records that have been held by the courts not to be protected by a right of privacy," continued Hadley. "And there are a variety of ways in which those records lawfully can be provided to the government." "So again, I can't confirm or deny the claims made, but if you just look at the claims, it's a very limited question, and it's hard to find the privacy issue there," added Hadley. But some say the compiling of data may be illegal. "The U.S. government's secret collection of Americans' phone records may not breach the Fourth Amendment's privacy guarantee, legal analysts said Thursday, but it could violate federal surveillance and telecommunication laws," USA Today reported a few days ago (link). Full transcript of Hadley's interview with Bob Schieffer on CBS' Face the Nation: # The story hit Washington last week like a typhoon. The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting American's phone records since 9/11. Is it still going on? And exactly how does it fight the terrorists? We'll ask President Bush's National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. What does Congress plan to do about this? We'll ask Senator Arlen Specter, who wants to bring phone company executives to Capitol Hill for an explanation, and Congresswoman Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. I'll have a final word on moms and their day. But first, spying on your calls on "Face the Nation." (Announcements.) MR. SCHIEFFER: And good morning, again, on this Mother's Day. The National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is in the studio with us this morning. Well, this is a story that all of Washington is talking about. And it all began when The New York Times reported last year that the National Security Agency was eavesdropping without court orders on some telephone calls coming into this country, and some telephone calls going out of this country, when it involved people suspected of having terrorist ties. The government stressed from the beginning this was a very limited kind of surveillance that was going on. But last week, USA Today reported that the phone companies had been turning over the phone call records of millions of Americans to the government. We want to see how all this comes together. Mr. Hadley, thank you for joining us this morning. Let me just ask you first -- we're told this began after 9/11. Is it still going on? MR. HADLEY: Well, let me just start, Bob, by giving a little context. There have been concerns about privacy. The president takes very seriously his responsibilities to protect the privacy of the American people. He also takes seriously his responsibility to protect the American people from attack from al Qaeda. As you know, we have a series of efforts and intelligence programs to try and prevent this country from being attacked. They are lawful. They have been briefed to the appropriate members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, House Intelligence Committee, Republicans and Democrats, and they're focused on the war on terror. I can't, sitting here, confirm or deny the claims that are in the USA Today story, but it's very interesting what that story does not claim. It does not claim that the government was listening on domestic phone calls. It does not claim that names we passed, that addresses were passed, that content was passed. It's really about calling records if you read the story. Who was called when, and how long did they talk? And these are business records that have been held by the courts not to be protected by a right of privacy. And there are a variety of ways in which those records lawfully can be provided to the government. So again, I can't confirm or deny the claims made, but if you just look at the claims, it's a very limited question, and it's hard to find the privacy issue there. MR. SCHIEFFER: All right. Let me just ask you the question that I can just imagine the people sitting watching this broadcast this morning are asking. And they're saying look, it's been in all the papers. If there's a terrorist spy around that hasn't heard about this by now, he's not a very good spy. Why can you not confirm it, Mr. Hadley? MR. HADLEY: Well, one of the reasons is that, again, these are intelligence operations. They are to try and protect this country from being attacked. And it's precisely the problem that when these things are leaked to the media, and they become known, the value of the program goes down, because the enemy knows what it is you're trying to do. So it is very important that if we're going to protect the country against terrorists, the government be able properly, lawfully, consulting appropriately with Congress to be able to pursue secret programs. In addition, there's litigation involving some of these claims in the courts. The courts will have an opportunity to rule on it. MR. SCHIEFFER: Well, the reason the litigation is there though is because they're claiming it's illegal, and it is an invasion of privacy. MR. HADLEY: The reasons there, of course, is because of the leaks of this information in public. And what the president has said very clearly is he has charged us, and charged his administration, to do everything possible to protect the country from being attacked. But to do it in a lawful way, to do it within the law and within the Constitution. That's the charge that I think we're trying to do. MR. SCHIEFFER: Was the president himself aware of all of this? MR. HADLEY: Well, again, all of this -- I can't confirm or deny specific claims in that article. But there has been discussion of the terrorist surveillance program, which was talked about, which again is a program that was talked about and prompted The New York Times article we've talked about. MR. SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this, Mr. Hadley. Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is going to be on this broadcast after you in the next segment, and I think the question -- well, he told me -- in fact, he told you as we were talking before the broadcast. The main question he has is how does the Congress, the Judiciary Committee, exercise its oversight authority on a government program if it doesn't know what the program is? I think that's a good question. MR. HADLEY: Of course, the Congress does know. The House -- these are intelligence programs. They have been briefed to appropriate members of the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee. These were the committees established by the Congress to deal with these matters, and these are the committees that we have been keeping informed. MR. SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you this then. Why didn't you go to a court and seek court orders on this sort of thing, or see if it was legal? I know for a fact -- sources have told me -- that when this whole thing about the eavesdropping came about, that General Hayden, who was running the National Security Agency at that time, went to his lawyers in the agency, and asked three of them to check the legality of this. And he was so concerned about it -- I am told by a source -- that he told them separately, and didn't tell any of the three that he had asked the other two to check it out. MR. HADLEY: Look, you want your officials to be concerned, to make sure that the programs they design to fight terror are lawful. And a lot of lawyers in the executive branch spend a lot of time to make sure that the things we do are within the law. That's what you'd expect, and that's what we do. But the terrorist surveillance program that has been talked about in the press is a narrowly defined program. It is a program that is a way to detect and prevent attacks in the United States. And it requires people to be very agile, to use information, see if it is an indication of a plot, and the FISA legal structure is not designed for this kind of function. That's the problem. MR. SCHIEFFER: All right. All right. Another question that I want to ask you about. The administration from the beginning has argued that this, again, was very carefully focused -- this whole eavesdropping thing. That it was the calls coming into the United States from people who might have some sort of a terrorist tie, or at least suspected as such, or going the other way and vice versa. But this morning in The New York Times, a White House spokesman, Dana Perino I think her name is, and here's the quote, "NSA -- the National Security Agency -- does not intentionally listen in on any domestic-to-domestic calls without a court order." Now, having been in Washington a long time, I have to say, Mr. Hadley, if ever there were a statement with red flags all over it, it would be a statement from the White House that says they do not intentionally do something. Does that mean that there have been some calls that have been monitored inside the United States -- intentionally or otherwise? MR. HADLEY: The president has been very clear that we are to pursue our intelligence programs within the law. As you know, domestic-to-domestic require a court order. He has directed that that, of course, will be complied with. If there have been mistakes, he would have expected that those mistakes would be identified and remedied. Because his guidance has been very clear -- we're going to do all we can to defend the country, but we're going to do it within the law and the Constitution. MR. SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this question. General Hayden, who headed the NSA, as we all know has been nominated now to head the CIA. Senators of both parties say his confirmation is going to hang on how he answers the questions as these confirmation hearings. Is he going to be able to confirm any of this to the senators? You say that you simply can't confirm or deny the story that was in USA Today. If he stonewalls those committees, isn't that going to make it very difficult for them to confirm him? MR. HADLEY: Well, what I'm saying is here, speaking on national television, General Hayden, of course, has been answering questions about the terrorist surveillance program carefully in public those things he can talk about in public. But of course, very extensively with those members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, that have been designated to provide oversight to this program. General Hayden spent a lot of time up in the Congress, with the members of those committees, talking through the terrorist surveillance program to make sure -- MR. SCHIEFFER: So what you're saying is he's going to be able to give them more information, perhaps in a closed session or in some other way, than you've been able to give us today. MR. HADLEY: He already has, because the whole point of these programs is they are secret programs. Because if they become public, their value is attritted, because then the bad guy knows what we're doing. MR. SCHIEFFER: Let me shift quickly to another subject. The president's going to make a speech on Monday on immigration. We are told -- in fact, the lead story on the CBS Evening News and a couple of the other networks Friday was -- that the administration has been considering plans to bring the National Guard into this, and to use the National Guard rather extensively. Now, a lot of people have a picture here, and I want to ask you about this. Are you planning to station armed National Guard troops on the border? I mean, I think a lot of people can see this picture of our National Guardsmen shooting Mexican immigrants as they are coming across the border. Is that what's about to happen here? MR. HADLEY: This is not about militarizing the border. The president is looking to do everything he can to secure the border. It's what the American people want, it's what he wants to do. He's listening to and getting a lot of good advice. He's had good consultations with the Congress. He will be talking to the governors. He's looking at a number of ideas, and a number of folks have suggested greater use of the National Guard. It's one of the things he will consider. He is, as you said, giving a speech to the country tomorrow night, and he will be addressing at that time additional measures to secure the border. MR. SCHIEFFER: Well, let's just put up one thing, and I know you don't want to preempt the boss what he's going to tell the American people. Is there a plan, or is it being envisioned, to use the Guard troops as guards? In other words, to carry out police functions. MR. HADLEY: There's actually been some use of the National Guard on the border already. They have been used in support functions to help the border patrol. Things like intelligence, training and that sort of thing. And I think that's the kind of thing people have in mind. But again, there are a number of ideas out there. The president is taking a look at them, and we'll have an opportunity to hear from him tomorrow night. MR. SCHIEFFER: Can you rule out though that he's going to use National Guard troops -- armed National Guard troops -- in guard duty as it were? MR. HADLEY: As I said, safeguarding the border is for the border patrol, and they have a huge task. And one of the issues is do they need help on an interim basis so that they can do the full function. It's the support function we're talking about. It's something we are doing as both we and our neighbors try and cooperatively strengthen our borders. MR. SCHIEFFER: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Hadley. I appreciate it. MR. HADLEY: Thanks very much. ---------------------------------------------------
Prison Planet.tv: The Premier Multimedia Subscription Package: Download and Share the Truth! Please help our fight against the New World Order by giving a donation. As bandwidth costs increase, the only way we can stay online and expand is with your support. Please consider giving a monthly or one-off donation for whatever you can afford. You can pay securely by either credit card or Paypal. Click here to donate. |
