Welcome to the worst week of Admiral Mike McConnell's life.

[babylonsister]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004202.php

Intel Chief McConnell in for A Headache at Hearing Tomorrow
By Spencer Ackerman - September 17, 2007, 1:08PM

Welcome to the worst week of Admiral Mike McConnell's life.

Before the week is out, the director of national intelligence will appear before the House judiciary and intelligence committees to defend the Protect America Act -- August's McConnell-pushed relaxation of restrictions on surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Even before the act passed, prominent Democrats vowed to roll back FISA changes that many on the left consider ill-advised, including the abandonment of individualized suspicion.

McConnell once enjoyed a sterling reputation as a non-partisan defense professional. That's all over, thanks to a string of events in the past couple months.

House Democrats believe McConnell negotiated with them on the Protect America Act in bad faith, reaching an agreement with them on a FISA compromise just before the August recess, only to see McConnell fall silent as the White House scotched it. (McConnell denies any such deal existed.) Then, in an interview with the El Paso Times, McConnell chastised Congress for allegedly revealing classified information during the surveillance debate -- only to go on to do so himself. (For good measure, he added that "some Americans are going to die" because of loose Congressional lips.) Perhaps most egregiously, McConnell told the Senate Government Affairs Committee last week -- completely contrary to the facts -- that the Protect America Act was responsible for the apprehension of three German terrorist suspects earlier this month, and then waited two days to retract his false statement.

All this was enough to prompt the former top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, Jane Harman (D-CA), to remark, "Jane to Mike: Please stop. You're undermining the authorities of your office."

All this adds up to a hellish week for McConnell as the Democrats debate rolling back the Protect America Act. He's in front of the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow morning, whose chairman, John Conyers (D-MI), has already asked him in writing last week to explain how McConnell could disclose information about the administration's warrantless surveillance program to the El Paso Times when the administration was claiming before appellate-court judges that even the most basic facts about the program were state secrets. McConnell will also have to answer for some of the more fanciful statements he made in the interview, to say nothing of his German-terrorist remarks. That's on top of whatever defense of the Protect America Act he offers.

It's ironic: the White House made McConnell the point man for renegotiating FISA in the summer because its other relevant official -- ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- had no credibility on the Hill after the U.S. attorney firings. Barely a month later, Congressional Democrats view McConnell as an administration stooge loose with the facts. Gonzales, of course, is gone. After this week, we'll have a better sense of whether McConnell will either recover his reputation or become the administration's latest high-ranking albatross.

The text of Conyers' letter to McConnell:

September 11, 2007

The Honorable Michael "Mike" McConnell

Director of National Intelligence

Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Washington, DC 20511

Dear Director McConnell:

At the hearing held in our Committee last week, a number of serious concerns were raised by several members about your recent interview with the El Paso Times, in which you revealed "previously classified details of government surveillance" activities. K. Shrader, "Spy chief reveals classified details about surveillance."1 Especially in light of the Administration’s previous refusal to provide such information to Congress, this selective disclosure of information raises troubling questions that we ask you to address prior to your scheduled appearance before the Committee next week to discuss proposed changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).2

Previously, when the Judiciary Committee has attempted to obtain this and similar information about Administration surveillance programs, the response has been that information about surveillance programs is "classified and sensitive, and therefore cannot be discussed" in responding to Committee questions.3 In a public affidavit submitted earlier this year as part of In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation,4 moreover, you asserted the state secrets doctrine to seek dismissal of a case concerning foreign intelligence surveillance, attempting to prevent even confirmation as to whether U.S. companies were involved in surveillance activities. During the very week you disclosed the involvement of private companies in your El Paso interview, the Justice Department continued to make that argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.5

In light of these concerns, we ask that you answer the following questions in writing prior to your testimony next week::

1. Was a specific decision made to declassify any previously-classified information contained in the El Paso Times interview and, if so, when, by whom, and under what authority? Please provide the background and a specific explanation for any such decision.

2 In light of your public confirmation of the involvement of "private sector" telecommunications companies in the Administration’s surveillance programs, what is the specific justification for your claim a few months earlier in litigation that confirmation of such involvement cannot be permitted under the state secrets doctrine? What steps have been or will be taken by you or by the Justice Department with respect to the earlier assertions, now contradicted by the El Paso Times interview, that participation of private companies in Administration surveillance programs cannot be confirmed?

3. The Administration’s report to Congress states that 2,181 FISA applications were filed in 2006. If each application takes 200 man-hours, as you suggested in the El Paso interview, this would require at least 218 attorneys and analysts working full-time for more than 436,000 hours on nothing but warrant applications. Do you continue to stand by your assertion to the El Paso Times that "t takes about 200 hours" to do the application for each phone number?

4. According to an article in today’s New York Times, you made another selective disclosure of classified information when you claimed yesterday to a Senate committee in public session that the temporary FISA law just passed by Congress helped lead to the arrests last week of three Islamic militants accused of planning bomb attacks in Germany. The article also states, however, that another official stated that you may have misspoken and that the intercepts in question were obtained under the old law.6 Please state whether a specific decision was made to de-classify the information you provided to the Senate Committee and, if so, when, by whom, under what authority, and what was the specific background and explanation. In addition, please clarify whether the intercepts in question were foreign-to-foreign, as your statement implied, and whether they were in fact obtained under the old FISA law or the new FISA law.

We look forward to your prompt reply to these questions and to your continued cooperation as Congress considers FISA’s future. Responses and questions should be directed to the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515 (tel: [phone]; fax: [phone]). It would be of the utmost assistance to the Committee if your responses to the above questions were provided to us by no later than 2 PM on Monday, September 17, 2004, in advance of your testimony before us the following day. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,
___________________________________
John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman
____________________________________
Jerrold Nadler
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
__________________________________
Robert C. "Bobby" Scott
Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security

cc: Hon. Lamar S. Smith
Hon. Trent Franks
Hon. J. Randy Forbes

[MrCoffee]

1. i'm sure the same Congress that passed the PAA will really stick it to him

i'm just sure of it.

[Parche]

2. Trent Franks Is NOT Honorable

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
He is nothing but a scared constipated conservative that thinks terrorists are going to get him...
he is such a nifnod....