UT Documents

Name:

I was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator and am now a journalist. I am the author of three New York Times bestselling books -- "How Would a Patriot Act" (a critique of Bush executive power theories), "Tragic Legacy" (documenting the Bush legacy), and With Liberty and Justice for Some (critiquing America's two-tiered justice system and the collapse of the rule of law for its political and financial elites). My fifth book - No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the US Surveillance State - will be released on April 29, 2014 by Holt/Metropolitan.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Committee for the Liberation of Iraq Press Release -- 11/12/2002

The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a new non-governmental organization, has been formed to advocate freedom and democracy in Iraq. A distinguished group of Americans who share a common view on the importance of liberating Iraq and building pluralistic institutions will serve on the Committee's Advisory Board. The Committee will meet with Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, at the White House later today to discuss Iraq policy.

Chaired by former Secretary of State George Shultz, Advisory Board members represent a diverse, bi-partisan coalition including former Senator Bob Kerrey, Teamsters President James Hoffa, Jr., retired General and former "Drug Czar" Barry McCaffrey and noted Middle East expert Dr. Bernard Lewis of Princeton University (complete list attached). The Committee was formed to promote regional peace, political freedom and international security through replacement of the Saddam Hussein regime with a democratic government that respects the rights of the Iraqi people and ceases to threaten the community of nations.

"The problem in Iraq is not just Saddam Hussein's weapons - it is Saddam Hussein's regime. The Iraqi people are the first victims of this tyranny," said CLI President Randy Scheunemann. "For too long, Iraqis have suffered from the regime's brutality, Saddam's criminal pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and his drive for regional hegemony." Scheunemann concluded: "We believe it is time to confront the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's regime by liberating the Iraqi people."

Bruce Jackson, CLI Chairman, added. "The work of the Committee does not end with the disarmament of Iraq. We have to work to restore to the Iraqi people the freedom to make basic democratic choices. Freeing the Iraqi people and rebuilding the institutions of self-governance can only be accomplished with bi-partisan support and with the support and counsel of America's friends and allies in Europe and around the world."

The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq will engage in educational and advocacy efforts to mobilize domestic and international support for policies aimed at ending the aggression of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny. The Committee is committed to work beyond the liberation of Iraq to the reconstruction of its economy and the establishment of political pluralism, democratic institutions, and the rule of law.

Dr. Mahdi Al-Bassam, Iraq Liberation Action Committee

Dr. Barry Blechman, DFI International

Dr. Eliot Cohen, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

Thomas A. Dine, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

General Wayne Downing, U.S. Army (retired)

Rend Rahim Francke, Iraq Foundation

Honorable Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

Lt. General Buster Glosson, U.S. Air Force (retired)

James R. Hoffa, Jr., International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Howell Jackson, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Honorable Robert Kerrey, former U.S. Senator

Amb. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, American Enterprise Institute

William Kristol, Weekly Standard

Dr. Bernard Lewis, Princeton University

General Barry McCaffrey, U.S. Army (retired)

Will Marshall, Progressive Policy Institute

Honorable Richard Perle, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense

Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute

Richard Shultz, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy

Honorable Steve Solarz, former Member of Congress

Ruth Wedgwood, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

Leon Wieseltier, The New Republic

Chris Williams, Johnston and Associates

Honorable James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence
http://www.usnewswire.com

Monday, April 28, 2008

Letters from Rep. Rosa DeLauro to network executives

Washington, D.C. – In an effort to press for changes, following The New York Times investigative report uncovering the Pentagon’s use of military analysts to “shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks,” Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3) wrote to the heads of ABC News, CBS News, CNN News, Fox News Channel and NBC News to get specifics about each outlet’s policies surrounding the hiring and vetting of military analysts reporting on the Iraq War.

When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed,” DeLauro writes in the letter. “Now that the full extent of the Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the objective analyses they deserve.”

Below is the text of the five letters.

April 24, 2008

Steve Capus

President

NBC News

General Electric Company

30 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, NY 10112

Dear Mr. Capus:

I write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in an April 20, 2008 article in The New York Times that pertain to your network’s use of military analysts who provided expert commentary on the war in Iraq, conditions at Guantánamo Bay and other activities associated with the Global War on Terror. Specifically, I am seeking answers regarding your network’s policies on conflict of interest and transparency as they relate to individuals who both appear on news programs and represent military contractors, and the impact that may have on their objective analysis of current events.

According to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the additional fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by the Global War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear competitive advantage. These analysts likely felt further pressure to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain military contracts for the companies they represent.

Network officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. “None of that ever happened,” said Kenneth Allard, an NBC analyst until 2006. In the article, network officials claimed they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, but did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees with regard to disclosing outside financial interests. If this was indeed the case, I would urge you to explain why and provide the justification regarding the lax policy. It seems to me that the credibility of your news organization is at stake.

As I understand, your network offered the Times the following statement for the story: “We have clear policies in place to assure that the people who appear on our air have been appropriately vetted and that nothing in their profile would lead to even a perception of a conflict of interest.” Yet, it was revealed that two prominent NBC analysts, Barry R. McCaffrey and the late Wayne A. Downing, were on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created in 2002 with support from the White House to help make the case for war in Iraq, and both men also had their own consulting firms and sat on the boards of major military contractors. These facts call into question the effectiveness of your vetting process, which fails to require that commentators appearing on your network provide detailed accounts of the nature of their relationships with federal government officials or disclose their outside business interests.

When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the objective analyses they deserve.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

April 24, 2008

David Westin

President

ABC News

The Walt Disney Company

77 West 66th Street

New York, NY 10023

Dear Mr. Westin:

I write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in an April 20, 2008 article in The New York Times that pertain to your network’s use of military analysts who provided expert commentary on the war in Iraq, conditions at Guantánamo Bay and other activities associated with the Global War on Terror. Specifically, I am seeking answers regarding your network’s policies on conflict of interest and transparency as they relate to individuals who both appear on news programs and represent military contractors, and the impact that may have on their objective analysis of current events.

According to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the further reported fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by the Global War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear competitive advantage. These analysts likely felt further pressure to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain military contracts for the companies they represent.

Network officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. A spokesman for your network, Jeffrey W. Schneider, told the Times that ABC’s military consultants were not held to the same ethical rules as its full-time journalists, but were expected to keep the network informed of any potential outside business entanglements. “We make it clear to them we expect them to keep us closely apprised,” he said. If true, this can only lead me to conclude that your vetting process is not fully effective and certainly does not include asking commentators appearing on your network to provide detailed accounts of the nature of their relationships with leaders in the federal government or to disclose their outside business interests.

When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the objective analyses they deserve.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

April 24, 2008

Sean J. McManus

President

CBS News and Sports

524 West 57th Street

New York, NY 10019

Dear Mr. McManus:

I write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in an April 20, 2008 article in The New York Times that pertain to your network’s use of military analysts who provided expert commentary on the war in Iraq, conditions at Guantánamo Bay and other activities associated with the Global War on Terror. Specifically, I am seeking answers regarding your network’s policies on conflict of interest and transparency as they relate to individuals who both appear on news programs and represent military contractors, and the impact that may have on their objective analysis of current events.

According to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the further reported fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by the Global War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear competitive advantage. These analysts likely felt further pressure to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain military contracts for the companies they represent.

Network officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. In the article, network officials claimed they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, but did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees with regard to disclosing outside financial interests. I am left wondering whether that is in fact the case at CBS, and if so why?

Your network declined to comment neither on what knowledge it had of military analysts’ business affiliations nor what steps, if any, it took to guard against potential conflicts. Yet, the article did reveal that soon after signing with CBS, retired Air Force General Joseph W. Ralston was named vice chairman of the Cohen Group, led by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen. The company’s website tells prospective clients, “The Cohen Group knows that getting to ‘yes’ in the aerospace and defense market — whether in the United States or abroad — requires that companies have a thorough, up-to-date understanding of the thinking of government decision makers.” This revelation can only lead me to conclude that your vetting process is not fully effective and certainly does not include asking commentators appearing on your network to provide detailed accounts of the nature of their relationships with leaders in the federal government or to disclose their outside business interests.

When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the objective analyses they deserve.

I look forward to your reply.

April 24, 2008

Roger Ailes

Chairman and Chief Executive

Fox News Channel

News Corporation

1211 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Ailes:

I write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in an April 20, 2008 article in The New York Times that pertain to your network’s use of military analysts who provided expert commentary on the war in Iraq, conditions at Guantánamo Bay and other activities associated with the Global War on Terror. Specifically, I am seeking answers regarding your network’s policies on conflict of interest and transparency as they relate to individuals who both appear on news programs and represent military contractors, and the impact that may have on their objective analysis of current events.

According to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the further reported fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by the Global War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear competitive advantage. These analysts likely felt further pressure to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain military contracts for the companies they represent.

Network officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. In the article, network officials claimed they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, but did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees with regard to disclosing outside financial interests. I am left wondering whether that is in fact the case at Fox News, and if so why?

A spokeswoman for Fox News told the Times that executives “refused to participate” in the story. Yet, the article revealed that many Fox News analysts appeared to have significant business conflicts of interest. For example, General Thomas G. McInerney sits on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions; retired Marine Colonel William V. Cowan was the chief executive of a the military firm, the wvc3 Group, a company that sought contracts worth tens of millions to supply body armor and counterintelligence services in Iraq; retired Navy Captain Charles T. Nash is a consultant who helps small companies break into the military market; retired Marine Colonel John C. Garrett is a lobbyist at Patton Boggs who helps firms win Pentagon contracts, including in Iraq; and retired Army Lieutenant Timur J. Eads is vice president of government relations for Blackbird Technologies. These revelations can only lead me to conclude that your vetting process is not fully effective and certainly does not include asking commentators appearing on your network to provide detailed accounts of the nature of their relationships with leaders in the federal government or to disclose their outside business interests.

When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the objective analyses they deserve.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

April 24, 2008

Jim Walton

President

CNN News Group

Time Warner Inc.

One CNN Center

Atlanta, GA 30303

Dear Mr. Walton:

I write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in an April 20, 2008 article in The New York Times that pertain to your network’s use of military analysts who provided expert commentary on the war in Iraq, conditions at Guantánamo Bay and other activities associated with the Global War on Terror. Specifically, I am seeking answers regarding your network’s policies on conflict of interest and transparency as they relate to individuals who both appear on news programs and represent military contractors, and the impact that may have on their objective analysis of current events.

According to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the additional fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by the Global War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear competitive advantage. These analysts likely felt further pressure to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain military contracts for the companies they represent.

Network officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. In the article, network officials claimed they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, but did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees with regard to disclosing outside financial interests. As this is allegedly the case with your network, I would urge to explain why and provide the justification regarding the lax policy. It seems to me that the credibility of your news organization is at stake.

As I understand, CNN requires its military analysts to disclose in writing all outside sources of income. Yet, it was revealed in the article that for nearly three years CNN was unaware that retired Army General James Marks, a main military analyst for the network, was pursuing military and intelligence contracts as a senior executive with McNeil Technologies Reportedly, General Marks disclosed that he received income from McNeil Technologies, but he was not required to describe what his job entailed. As a result, he remained a CNN commentator even as he was bidding on a $4.6 billion contract to provide thousands of translators to United States forces in Iraq, a contract a McNeil spin-off ultimately won. These facts make evident that your vetting process is not fully effective and clearly fails to fully include commentators’ appearing on your network to provide detailed accounts of the nature of their relationships with federal government officials or to disclose their outside business interests.

When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the objective analyses they deserve.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Gen. Montgomery Meigs on Hardball -- Oct. 14, 2005

MATTHEWS: This weekend, it`s a crucial step for the future of Iraq. Iraqis will go to the polls for a referendum on the new constitution. But Sunni insurgents are trying to keep the constitution from being approved. Power, by the way, is slowly being restored after the insurgents sabotaged power lines that plunged much of Baghdad into darkness.

NBC military analyst and retired Army General Montgomery Meigs is just back from Iraq and joins us now.

Well, I don`t know many generals just back from Iraq I can talk to like I can with you, General, so is it better than you thought it was going to be, or worse than you thought it would be? Please be blunt.

GEN. MONTGOMERY MEIGS (RET), U.S. ARMY: It was better. Commanders have a bit in their teeth, they have a mission, they understand what they`re doing. They have a plan that`s paying off.

Let me give you some data points, Chris. We have policed up 100, roughly 100 people connected to Zarqawi`s networks, six of his lieutenants, 36 of his regional bosses, and another 56 of his foreign fighter shooters in the last 10 months. That`s a statistic that hasn`t gotten out. That`s amazing.

MATTHEWS: But how many people have joined the insurgency and joined the terrorist organization since that time?

MEIGS: Oh, they do that, but the nice thing about getting the emir (ph) of Mosul three times, the fourth guy that steps up is just not as talented, he`s not as well versed in it as the other guys were, and he will be on the way to Abu Ghraib very shortly, I`m sure.

MATTHEWS: Are we going to leave that country with some success in the next couple of years, or are we there for the longest duration you can imagine? Are we just going to be there for -- interminably amount of time?

MEIGS: The next 120 days are critical, to get that new government seated. By the way, I believe the constitution will be approved. Secondly, we are going to be there through that first government`s term, about another four years, but not with the number of troops you see now. As the Iraqi forces come online -- and they have come online -- you`re going to see us be able to draw down the troops to a certain extent.

Another data point for you. Recently in the battles around Tal Afar, which were very successful, killed over 100 insurgents, policed up another 400. Eleven Iraqi battalions in the fighting, three American.

MATTHEWS: Yeah. Well, we have lost about 1,000 troops a year. Are we going to continue to suffer those kinds of casualties?

MEIGS: I don`t think so. I think it will taper off as the new government gets into place and as the Iraqi security forces take on an even greater role.

MATTHEWS: Who is going to run -- is it going to be like Iran? What is this new country going to look like over there?

MEIGS: It`s hard to say. Iraqis had a pretty secular tradition. People I was talking to, they stressed the point that there is a lot of inter-marriage between Shias and Sunnis. I think that one is too close to call. We`ll just have to wait and see.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you, General Meigs. I do trust you, and I am glad to hear there`s an optimistic voice coming back. Let me ask you one last question...

MEIGS: Sure.

MATTHEWS: ... about this election. If it goes the other way, if the constitution is rebuked by that three districts or whatever the rule is, what will that mean?

MEIGS: It means that you have to rewrite the constitution with the new government that will be formed with the election in December. It`s a minor setback. It means another one of these tedious deals, but the Sunnis will have voted, they will be in the play. That`s not all bad.

MATTHEWS: OK, certainly not. Thank you very much, General Montgomery Meigs.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Casey/Whitehouse letter to Mukasey


For Immediate Release

April 17, 2008

Casey, Whitehouse Urge Mukasey to Correct Remarks on FISA Safeguards

WASHINGTON, D.C.-U.S. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Sheldon Whitehouse
(D-RI) sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey expressing
concern over a statement he made, which appears to be inaccurate,
regarding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) safeguards. In
the letter, Senators Casey and Whitehouse asked Attorney General Mukasey
to correct remarks he made on March 27, 2008 in San Francisco, CA that
implied that FISA safeguards may have stopped the U.S. government from
preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"I was disappointed to hear our Attorney General convey the erroneous
and grossly misleading impression that FISA due process safeguards
prevented the U.S. government from intercepting Al Qaeda communications
that may have stopped the horrific 9/11 attacks. Not only did the
Attorney General not get his facts straight, he was only the latest
Administration official to inappropriately use the tragic events of
September 11th to advocate for a policy change. It is time for senior
Administration officials to stop blaming legal safeguards which only
serve to protect the rights of American citizens."

"It's troubling that Attorney General Mukasey has added his name to the
growing list of Bush administration officials who have suggested -
incorrectly - that FISA stood in the way of intelligence collection that
could have prevented the September 11th attacks," said Whitehouse, a
member of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees and former
state and federal prosecutor. "Beginning last August, this
administration has tried to railroad Congress and the American people
into accepting changes to FISA that unnecessarily violate Americans'
privacy. We have been working hard to put this right, and I hope the
President and the administration will work with us, rather than against
us."



Full text of the letter is below:

Dear Attorney General Mukasey,


We write you today out of concern that recent public remarks you made in
San Francisco on March 27th convey the impression that FISA safeguards
prevented the U.S. government from intercepting Al Qaeda communications
which may have helped prevent the horrific 9/11 attacks.

During the question and answer session following a speech to the
Commonwealth Club, defending the Administration's recommendations to
revise the FISA statute, you stated,

"We knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be
a safe house in Afghanistan, and we knew that it came to the United
States. We didn't know precisely where it went. ... You've got 3000
people who went to work that day, and didn't come home, to show for
that."

However, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, the Vice Chairman of the 9/11
Commission, and Dr. Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of the 9/11
Commission, have both stated that they are unaware of the existence of
any such phone call prior to the 9/11 attacks. Congressman Hamilton
asserted, "I am unfamiliar with the telephone call that Attorney General
Mukasey cited in his appearance in San Francisco on March 27. The 9/11
Commission did not receive any information pertaining to its
occurrence."

In a subsequent appearance last week before a Senate Appropriations
subcommittee, you responded to a question from Judiciary Chairman Leahy
by admitting that this phone call "didn't come from Afghanistan" and
then asserting this phone call was referenced in a February 22, 2008
letter that you and Admiral Michael McConnell, Director of National
Intelligence, sent Congressman Silvestre Reyes, the Chairman of the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. That letter stated
the following:

"We have provided Congress with examples in which difficulties with
collections under [Executive Order 12333] resulted in the Intelligence
Community missing crucial information. For instance, one of the
September 11 hijackers communicated with a known overseas terrorist
facility while he was living in the United States. Because that
collection was conducted under Executive Order 12333, the Intelligence
Community could not identify the domestic end of the communication prior
to September 11, 2001, when it could have stopped that attack."

Your remarks in San Francisco, given the subsequent denials by
Congressman Hamilton and Dr. Zelikow, are troubling. Our understanding
is that it is patently untrue that FISA safeguards to protect due
process rights for American citizens prevented the U.S. government from
surveillance of communications between an Al Qaeda safe house and a
suspected foreign terrorist in the United States. As the Congressional
Joint Inquiry on the 9/11 attacks established in its final report in
December 2002,

"Consistent with its focus on communications abroad, NSA adopted a
policy that avoided intercepting the communications between individuals
in the United States and foreign countries. NSA adopted this policy
even though the collection of such communications is within its mission
and it would have been possible for NSA to obtain FISA Court
authorization for such collection. ... This further evidences the slow
response of the Intelligence Community to the developing transnational
threat."

In your exchange with Chairman Leahy on April 10th, you acknowledged
that the U.S. government could have monitored this phone call under the
existing provisions of the FISA statute. Indeed, if there was not
sufficient time to obtain a FISA warrant, emergency FISA procedures as
of September 2001 would have permitted 24 hours of surveillance without
a warrant. Finally, the February 22nd letter states that a Presidential
Executive Order, not the FISA legislation, was the governing authority
that supposedly frustrated interception of this pre-9/11 phone call.

Regrettably, since well before you became Attorney General, senior
Administration officials have made questionable assertions about FISA
safeguards hampering the ability of our intelligence community to detect
terrorist threats. They have advanced the incorrect impression that
unnecessary legal safeguards allowed Al Qaeda operatives to plot the
most deadly terrorist attack in American history. It is regrettable
that you have now joined this pattern. Based on our regard for your
office, and the principle that public debate over political issues
should be based on facts, we urge you to correct the remarks you made on
March 27th in San Francisco.

Sincerely,

Robert P. Casey, Jr., United States Senator

Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Senator







###




Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Email to Justice Department

Dear Mr. Carr - In a statement to me today, 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman, Rep. Lee Hamilton, denied any knowledge of the episode the Attorney General described, and futher affirmed that the Commission had never been privy to any such information. This is what Rep. Hamilton said:

"I
am unfamiliar with the telephone call that Attorney General Mukasey cited in his appearance in San Francisco on March 27. The 9/11 Commission did not receive any information pertaining to its occurrence."

In a statement to me last week, Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission's Executive Director, said much the same thing, as did House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers in a letter to the Attorney General.

Was the alleged call described by the Attorney General disclosed to the 9/11 Commission? Does the Justice Department have any comment as to why the 9/11 Commission is unaware of the event which the Attorney General claims prevented the Bush administration from preventing the 9/11 attacks?

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Emails to Tom Kean and the DOJ

----- Original Message -----
To: thkconsultingnc@xxxxxxx.xxx
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 4:26 PM
Subject: Interview/comment request - Tom Kean


Gov. Kean -

I am a writer at Salon.com, working on a story regarding extraordinary comments Attorney General Michael Mukasey made last week about the 9/11 attacks. Specifically, the Attorney General claimed that the U.S. Government knew of a telephone call into the U.S., originating from an "Afghan safe house", relating to the 9/11 attacks, but was unable to intercept it due to FISA's warrant requirements.

I interviewed Phil Zelikow via email, who said that he has never heard of any incident of the type alleged by Mr. Mukasey to have occurred. Is the Attorney General's claim about this incident true? Was the 9/11 Commission ever made aware of any such claim?

This growing controversy has been covered by several media outlets. I have written two articles on it thus far for Salon. Keith Olbermann broadcast a segment on it last night on MSNBC. The speech itself -- and the specific comments Mukasey made -- were covered and quoted by various newspapers, including the San Francisco Chronicle, New York Sun, and Wall St. Journal.

I would appreciate a comment from you, either via email or by telephone, regarding the Attorney General's comments. An assertion like that is obviously of great significance and I think it's incumbent upon Commission officials to identify false claims about the 9/11 attacks coming from high government officials.


The articles I have written are here and here, and I intend to write one again tomorrow, and would appreciate a comment from you. Thank you -

Glenn Greenwald
SALON


----- Original Message -----
To: xxxx.xxxxxx.x
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 4:35 PM
Subject: Attorney General Mukasey -- Interview/comment request

Ms. Evans -

I am a writer at Salon.com, working on a story regarding extraordinary comments Attorney General Mukasey made last week about the 9/11 attacks. Specifically, the Attorney General claimed that the U.S. Government knew of a telephone call into the U.S., originating from an "Afghan safe house", relating to the 9/11 attacks, but was unable to intercept it due to FISA's warrant requirements.

Today, I interviewed 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow via email, who said that he has never heard of any incident of the type alleged by Mr. Mukasey to have occurred.

Does he have any response to Mr. Zelikow's statement? Is the Attorney General's claim about this incident true? Was the 9/11 Commission ever made aware of any such claim? Why wasn't this obviously significant incident referenced in the 9/11 Commission Report?

This growing controversy has been covered by several media outlets. I have written two articles on it thus far for Salon. Keith Olbermann broadcast a segment on it last night on MSNBC. The speech itself -- and the specific comments Mukasey made -- were covered and quoted by various newspapers, including the San Francisco Chronicle, New York Sun, and Wall St. Journal.


I would appreciate a comment from you, either via email or by telephone, regarding the Attorney General's comments. An assertion like that is obviously of great significance and I think it's incumbent upon the DOJ to respond to Mr. Zelikow's statement that the 9/11 Commission has no knowledge whatsoever of the incident the Attorney General described.


Thank you -
Glenn Greenwald
SALON

_______________________________