Why Michael Chertoff is a radioactive pick for AG
Just when you thought it was safe to come back from vacation...
At the same moment we learned Alberto Gonzales would step down as attorney general, that favorite Washington parlor game, "Replacement Pick," kicked into high gear. Initial speculation focused on Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former prosecutor, federal judge, and senior Justice Department official, who, some have long thought, has had his eye on an an eventual AG nod or a Supreme Court nomination in exchange for his DHS service.
But the odds now seem against Chertoff. The chatter I'm picking up has him as a long-shot pick. One concern is that moving any cabinet secretary into the AG slot would mean two confirmation hearings, at a time when the administration would prefer to keep its chieftains out of Congress' crosshairs.
I see three big reasons why Chertoff is a radioactive pick as AG. Any one of these might not kill his chances, but cumulatively, I think they add up to a no-go.
1.) Katrina. Today is the second anniversary of the storm's devastation of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Chertoff had been on the job six months at the time, and his department's response, like the hurricane itself, was a disaster. The Gulf still reels from the storms' effects. (The Times Picayune had this message, blasted across its front page, for President Bush, who's visiting the region today.) Some think Chertoff escaped much of the blame for the response, and even though his duties as attorney general would have nothing to do with storm recovery, confirmation hearings would force him to answer questions about his actions two years ago.
2.) Torture Memo and Guantanamo Detainees. It's worth revisiting Chertoff's confirmation hearings, at which he faced intense questioning about his role in crafting a memo on detainee treatment. The questions held up the hearings for a time. Mark Benjamin digs deep on this in a piece for Salon, in which he pointedly asks, "Did Chertoff lie to Congress about Guantanamo?"
3.) Politicization and mismanagement at DHS. The new attorney general is supposed to restore credibility and career morale at the Justice Department. Given Chertoff's mixed track record on both fronts at Homeland Security, it's questionable whether lawmakers would see him as the right man for that job. The department is in the midst of a transition from mostly political leadership to career managers. Under Chertoff, the trend towards political management--and politicization--was palpable. The House Homeland Security Committee has cited "critical leadership vacancies" at the department; a quarter of top positions remain unfilled. As I wrote in June, DHS has a reputation as a land of misfit toys, a place where Bush loyalists and partisans get patronage posts for which they lack qualifications. Despite Chertoff's efforts now to turn that tide, the reputation has stuck, and one can imagine how lawmakers would judge skeptically his ability to cleanse Justice of the stain of partisanship.
So, who are the leading contenders to replace Gonzales? The field appears wide open at the moment, which is a good indication that the White House is slowly and deliberately reaching out to several candidates, either to feel out their interest or to begin wearing them down so they'll eventually agree to take the job.
For my part, I'm putting early money on a dark horse candidate, who, a colleague perceptively noted, is a protege of White House counsel Fred Fielding, the man heading up the AG search. I'm going with former federal judge Michael Luttig, now general counsel at Boeing. The only hole missing in this man's impeccable resume is a stint as attorney general. Luttig had a dust-up, of sorts, with the administration over the Jose Padilla case. (He had ruled the administration could hold Padilla, a US citizen, as an enemy combatant, and later refused the government's request to transfer him to criminal court.) But I'm not convinced that rules him out as a pick. (It will certainly provide fuel for the president's critics, however.) Still, Fielding is known to consider Luttig one of his proudest accomplishments. See Luttig's resignation letter, in which he thanks Bush's father for making his dreams come true, and sums up his view of the judiciary's role in the war on terror. Fielding, you should remember, also groomed another bright jurist by the name of John Roberts.
Scenario 2: In a replay of the 2000 Cheney-led search for a vice president, Fielding himself is put up for the job. Bush has a rough track record with White House counsels turned-AG (read, ahem, Al Gonzales), and Harriet Miers didn't fare so well in her attempted jump to greener pastures. But Fielding is respected by Republicans and Democrats, and by several accounts, despite his role in stalling the White House's response to congressional subpoenas on US Attorneys and warrantless wiretapping, is reportedly well-liked by both sides.
Just when you thought it was safe to come back from vacation...
At the same moment we learned Alberto Gonzales would step down as attorney general, that favorite Washington parlor game, "Replacement Pick," kicked into high gear. Initial speculation focused on Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former prosecutor, federal judge, and senior Justice Department official, who, some have long thought, has had his eye on an an eventual AG nod or a Supreme Court nomination in exchange for his DHS service.
But the odds now seem against Chertoff. The chatter I'm picking up has him as a long-shot pick. One concern is that moving any cabinet secretary into the AG slot would mean two confirmation hearings, at a time when the administration would prefer to keep its chieftains out of Congress' crosshairs.
I see three big reasons why Chertoff is a radioactive pick as AG. Any one of these might not kill his chances, but cumulatively, I think they add up to a no-go.
1.) Katrina. Today is the second anniversary of the storm's devastation of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Chertoff had been on the job six months at the time, and his department's response, like the hurricane itself, was a disaster. The Gulf still reels from the storms' effects. (The Times Picayune had this message, blasted across its front page, for President Bush, who's visiting the region today.) Some think Chertoff escaped much of the blame for the response, and even though his duties as attorney general would have nothing to do with storm recovery, confirmation hearings would force him to answer questions about his actions two years ago.
2.) Torture Memo and Guantanamo Detainees. It's worth revisiting Chertoff's confirmation hearings, at which he faced intense questioning about his role in crafting a memo on detainee treatment. The questions held up the hearings for a time. Mark Benjamin digs deep on this in a piece for Salon, in which he pointedly asks, "Did Chertoff lie to Congress about Guantanamo?"
3.) Politicization and mismanagement at DHS. The new attorney general is supposed to restore credibility and career morale at the Justice Department. Given Chertoff's mixed track record on both fronts at Homeland Security, it's questionable whether lawmakers would see him as the right man for that job. The department is in the midst of a transition from mostly political leadership to career managers. Under Chertoff, the trend towards political management--and politicization--was palpable. The House Homeland Security Committee has cited "critical leadership vacancies" at the department; a quarter of top positions remain unfilled. As I wrote in June, DHS has a reputation as a land of misfit toys, a place where Bush loyalists and partisans get patronage posts for which they lack qualifications. Despite Chertoff's efforts now to turn that tide, the reputation has stuck, and one can imagine how lawmakers would judge skeptically his ability to cleanse Justice of the stain of partisanship.
So, who are the leading contenders to replace Gonzales? The field appears wide open at the moment, which is a good indication that the White House is slowly and deliberately reaching out to several candidates, either to feel out their interest or to begin wearing them down so they'll eventually agree to take the job.
For my part, I'm putting early money on a dark horse candidate, who, a colleague perceptively noted, is a protege of White House counsel Fred Fielding, the man heading up the AG search. I'm going with former federal judge Michael Luttig, now general counsel at Boeing. The only hole missing in this man's impeccable resume is a stint as attorney general. Luttig had a dust-up, of sorts, with the administration over the Jose Padilla case. (He had ruled the administration could hold Padilla, a US citizen, as an enemy combatant, and later refused the government's request to transfer him to criminal court.) But I'm not convinced that rules him out as a pick. (It will certainly provide fuel for the president's critics, however.) Still, Fielding is known to consider Luttig one of his proudest accomplishments. See Luttig's resignation letter, in which he thanks Bush's father for making his dreams come true, and sums up his view of the judiciary's role in the war on terror. Fielding, you should remember, also groomed another bright jurist by the name of John Roberts.
Scenario 2: In a replay of the 2000 Cheney-led search for a vice president, Fielding himself is put up for the job. Bush has a rough track record with White House counsels turned-AG (read, ahem, Al Gonzales), and Harriet Miers didn't fare so well in her attempted jump to greener pastures. But Fielding is respected by Republicans and Democrats, and by several accounts, despite his role in stalling the White House's response to congressional subpoenas on US Attorneys and warrantless wiretapping, is reportedly well-liked by both sides.
Labels: Homeland Security, Justice Department, Politics, Transition of Power
Fixing FISA
Just when you thought it was safe to go on vacation...
Congress and the administration have been busy bees the past week, haggling over modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The new law effectively legalizes much of what the National Security Agency has been doing since 9/11 under the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program. Intelligence agencies now can intercept communications from individuals outside the United States--including American citizens--without warrants. The significant element here is that now, the NSA and others don't have to stop surveillance and obtain a warrant when the target who is outisde the United States communicates with someone inside the United States. That's the big change. And while it's important to emphasize that the government cannot target someone inside the country without a warrant--the target has to be overseas--the new law significantly broadens intelligence-gathering powers in a number of important ways.
Perhaps the most significant, and so far least-reported aspect, is that the new law doesn't narrow these powers to collecting intelligence about terrorism. In fact, the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" never appear in the law at all. The operative term here is "foreign intelligence." This new law should be read not just in the context of counterterrorism, but as a broader modification of the government's eavesdropping and surveillance powers.
The story is still developing, and we'll likely have to wait a while to understand the new law's effects fully. But here are some quick pointers.
First, NPR's Talk of the Nation addressed the issue yesterday in a half-hour segment. I joined a panel of guests including Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.), who voted for the new surveillance law, and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who voted against it. Diane Rehm is also devoting her show this morning to the topic.
James Risen also had a piece in yesterday's New York Times that looks at how the law broadens the intelligence agencies' powers. This really got under the White House's skin--recall that Risen was one of two reporters who revealed the NSA's warrantless surveillance in December 2005--and yesterday the press office issued a rebuttal. Note that the White House doesn't say Risen's story is wrong, and that he does point out that the new law doesn't allow warrantless surveillance of a target inside the United States.
One larger story here is how and why the Democrats acceded to much of what the administration was asking for with regards to "updating" FISA. Part of the explanation is pure math--Nancy Pelosi knew that the Dems didn't have to votes to defeat the bill. But there is much to learn here about how the Democrats view themselves as a majority party on national security issues.
It's also important to note that many credible experts are arguing this new law does not significantly enhance the government's surveillance powers. We will hear a lot of debate on that point in the coming weeks, and it will frame the discussion when this new law comes up for reauthorization in six months.
Just when you thought it was safe to go on vacation...
Congress and the administration have been busy bees the past week, haggling over modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The new law effectively legalizes much of what the National Security Agency has been doing since 9/11 under the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program. Intelligence agencies now can intercept communications from individuals outside the United States--including American citizens--without warrants. The significant element here is that now, the NSA and others don't have to stop surveillance and obtain a warrant when the target who is outisde the United States communicates with someone inside the United States. That's the big change. And while it's important to emphasize that the government cannot target someone inside the country without a warrant--the target has to be overseas--the new law significantly broadens intelligence-gathering powers in a number of important ways.
Perhaps the most significant, and so far least-reported aspect, is that the new law doesn't narrow these powers to collecting intelligence about terrorism. In fact, the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" never appear in the law at all. The operative term here is "foreign intelligence." This new law should be read not just in the context of counterterrorism, but as a broader modification of the government's eavesdropping and surveillance powers.
The story is still developing, and we'll likely have to wait a while to understand the new law's effects fully. But here are some quick pointers.
First, NPR's Talk of the Nation addressed the issue yesterday in a half-hour segment. I joined a panel of guests including Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.), who voted for the new surveillance law, and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who voted against it. Diane Rehm is also devoting her show this morning to the topic.
James Risen also had a piece in yesterday's New York Times that looks at how the law broadens the intelligence agencies' powers. This really got under the White House's skin--recall that Risen was one of two reporters who revealed the NSA's warrantless surveillance in December 2005--and yesterday the press office issued a rebuttal. Note that the White House doesn't say Risen's story is wrong, and that he does point out that the new law doesn't allow warrantless surveillance of a target inside the United States.
One larger story here is how and why the Democrats acceded to much of what the administration was asking for with regards to "updating" FISA. Part of the explanation is pure math--Nancy Pelosi knew that the Dems didn't have to votes to defeat the bill. But there is much to learn here about how the Democrats view themselves as a majority party on national security issues.
It's also important to note that many credible experts are arguing this new law does not significantly enhance the government's surveillance powers. We will hear a lot of debate on that point in the coming weeks, and it will frame the discussion when this new law comes up for reauthorization in six months.
Labels: Director of National Intelligence, Media Notes and Appearances, National Security Agency, NSA surveillance, Terrorism
Talk of the Nation--assessing the latest FISA fix
I joined two members of Congress today to discuss the latest change to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
I joined two members of Congress today to discuss the latest change to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Labels: Media Notes and Appearances, NSA surveillance, Politics
Wire tapping, and more
No big surprise here, but an important admission from Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. In a letter to Arlen Specter (Penn.), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, McConnell acknowledges that the president authorized the National Security Agency to undertake "various intelligence activities," after the 9/11, aimed at preventing another terrorist attack. I and others have reported on some of these activities over the past year-and-a-half, but McConnell's letter marks the first time any administration official has so publicly acknowledged that the NSA is doing more than just "wire tapping," or intercepting phone calls.
Presumably, McConnell's letter is meant to provide legal cover for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose testimony about his 2004 nighttime visit to John Ashcroft's hospital room left Specter and his colleagues wondering if Gonzales had told them the whole truth about internal disagreements over the NSA "program" at the Justice Department. Gonzales tried to tell Senators that there was no disagreement over the program that the president acknowledged back in December 2005, which McConnell now says was just the wiretapping component, or, in his words, "the targeting for interception without a court order of international communications of Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations coming into our going out of the United States."
McConnell is asking members of Congress to change the law that governs such interceptions--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act-- and apparently there's significant disagreement over whether it can be applied to totally "foreign" communications that still pass through cables in the United States.
McConnell's letter to Specter can be viewed in light of his very public lobbying efforts, and not solely as a blocking maneuver for Gonzales. Putting it out there that the NSA is, in fact, undertaking other intelligence activities under presidential order strengthens his argument that the intelligence laws need significant overhaul, not just minor tweaking. Remember, McConnell is a former NSA director, and has strong opinions on adapting intelligence laws to the hunt for terrorists. McConnell also led Booz Allen Hamilton's intelligence division--after leaving NSA--and was involved in the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness program, another effort to track terrorist movements and anticipate their plots.
Bottom line: McConnell has been trying to "modernize," if you like, the intelligence community for the past several years. He has been more public about these efforts than many senior intelligence officials, and will continue to be so. He's not the spokesman for this effort just because he's the DNI--this is a personal mission for McConnell, as well.
UPDATE: According to the AP, Democratic leaders are signaling that a deal on FISA might be imminent.
No big surprise here, but an important admission from Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. In a letter to Arlen Specter (Penn.), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, McConnell acknowledges that the president authorized the National Security Agency to undertake "various intelligence activities," after the 9/11, aimed at preventing another terrorist attack. I and others have reported on some of these activities over the past year-and-a-half, but McConnell's letter marks the first time any administration official has so publicly acknowledged that the NSA is doing more than just "wire tapping," or intercepting phone calls.
Presumably, McConnell's letter is meant to provide legal cover for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose testimony about his 2004 nighttime visit to John Ashcroft's hospital room left Specter and his colleagues wondering if Gonzales had told them the whole truth about internal disagreements over the NSA "program" at the Justice Department. Gonzales tried to tell Senators that there was no disagreement over the program that the president acknowledged back in December 2005, which McConnell now says was just the wiretapping component, or, in his words, "the targeting for interception without a court order of international communications of Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations coming into our going out of the United States."
McConnell is asking members of Congress to change the law that governs such interceptions--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act-- and apparently there's significant disagreement over whether it can be applied to totally "foreign" communications that still pass through cables in the United States.
McConnell's letter to Specter can be viewed in light of his very public lobbying efforts, and not solely as a blocking maneuver for Gonzales. Putting it out there that the NSA is, in fact, undertaking other intelligence activities under presidential order strengthens his argument that the intelligence laws need significant overhaul, not just minor tweaking. Remember, McConnell is a former NSA director, and has strong opinions on adapting intelligence laws to the hunt for terrorists. McConnell also led Booz Allen Hamilton's intelligence division--after leaving NSA--and was involved in the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness program, another effort to track terrorist movements and anticipate their plots.
Bottom line: McConnell has been trying to "modernize," if you like, the intelligence community for the past several years. He has been more public about these efforts than many senior intelligence officials, and will continue to be so. He's not the spokesman for this effort just because he's the DNI--this is a personal mission for McConnell, as well.
UPDATE: According to the AP, Democratic leaders are signaling that a deal on FISA might be imminent.
Labels: Director of National Intelligence, Justice Department, Law, National Security Agency, NSA surveillance, Politics, Terrorism