White House Kept Justice Lawyers in Dark on Warrantless Wiretapping
By Carrie Johnson and Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 10, 2009; 4:00 PM
The Bush White House so strictly controlled access to its warrantless eavesdropping program that only three Justice Department lawyers were aware of the plan, which nearly ignited mass resignations and a constitutional crisis when a wider circle of administration officials began to question its legality, according to a watchdog report released today.
The unclassified summary by five inspectors general from government intelligence agencies called the arrangements "extraordinary and inappropriate" and asserted that White House secrecy "undermined" the ability of the Justice Department to do its work.
The report is the first public sign of a long running investigative review of a program that provoked fierce conflict within the highest levels of the Bush administration in 2004. At the time, the Justice Department's second in command and the director of the FBI both vowed to resign if President Bush continued with electronic intelligence gathering that they believed was outside the boundaries of the law.
Today's report was mandated by Congress in legislation last year that updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to accommodate new technologies. The bulk of the review remains highly classified.
The program, which has been called the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), is part of a broader intelligence effort known as the President's Surveillance Program, much of which is not known to the public. The TSP authorized the National Security Agency to intercept without court warrants international email messages and other communications believed to involve people with ties to al Qaeda.
The wiretapping program was brought under the oversight of the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, which is based in the District, in early 2007, after the New York Times reported its existence and chronicled unrest within the Bush administration about its legality.
continued:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02536.html