LA Times, By Jane Harman, July 25, 2009 (see sig)

As ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee from 2003 to 2006, I was part of the so-called Gang of Eight -- a group made up of the House and Senate leaders plus the chairs and ranking members of the two chambers' intelligence committees that is required by law to be briefed on the CIA's "covert" action programs.

Those briefings were conducted roughly quarterly at the White House -- either in the vice president's office or the Situation Room. Most of the ones I attended concerned a code-named program now known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Respectful of the double oath I signed to protect highly classified material, I did not take notes or speak to anyone about the meetings. However, comments by Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency and the CIA, that the Gang of Eight was "fully" briefed on the TSP prompt me to disclose, for the first time, what they were like.

In virtually every meeting, Hayden would present PowerPoint "slides," walking us through the operational details of the TSP. The program has since been described, in part, as one that intercepted communications to and from the U.S. in an effort to uncover terrorist networks and prevent or disrupt attacks. We were told that the program was the centerpiece of our counter-terrorism efforts, legal and yielding impressive results.

Often present were CIA officials (including then-Director George Tenet) and then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales. Missing was any Justice Department presence -- a tipoff, in retrospect, to the legal limbo under which the program operated.

Fast-forward to the jaw-dropping inspectors general report released this month, which makes clear that the TSP's legal underpinnings were fatally flawed and its results minimal. Those topics consumed scant time at our briefings. Why?

It is now clear to me that we learned only what the briefers wanted to tell us -- even though they were required by law to keep us "fully and currently informed." Absent the ability to do any independent research, it did not occur to me then that the program was operated wholly outside of the framework Congress created as the exclusive means to conduct such surveillance: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Nor did I know that the Justice Department was cut out of the process, and that one lawyer, John Yoo, had drafted the internal memo justifying the TSP under the president's Article 2 authorities. A new head of the Office of Legal Counsel repudiated that memo, citing the "shoddiness" of the legal reasoning. Among other things, it even failed to cite the key Supreme Court precedent -- the steel-seizure case -- which held in 1952 that when Congress has acted on an issue (as it did by passing FISA in 1978), the president's power is at its "lowest ebb."

[…]

Security and liberty are not a zero-sum game. Our Constitution protects both. Members of each branch of government take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Bipartisan oversight by Congress to assure that the laws we pass are faithfully executed is an indispensable part of that equation.

The House and Senate intelligence authorization bills would require increased notification, including, in the House bill, information on lawfulness, cost, benefit and risk. The White House has issued a veto threat, citing constitutional concerns. Surely both sides -- and policy -- would profit more from a robust partnership

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-harman25-2009jul25,0,6575602.story

You might be interested in this exercise that kicks off Monday(see sig):

DHS plans massive, five-day 'terrorism prevention' exercise

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/24/dhs-plans-five-day-multi-national-terrorism-prevention-exercise/

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) spoke at a National Press Club luncheon about Bush Administration accountability and health care reform. (see sig)

http://c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/07/24/HP/A/21321/NPC+Luncheon+Address+by+Rep+John+Conyers+DMI.aspx (44:04)

Some Gitmo detainees may come to US jails (see sig)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090724/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo_detainees

Bush-Cheney never made a mistake ever so no chance they would have talked about it at all is none. Obama did say near the end that all this attention on Gates-Crowley kept us from talking about health care implying that he hopes we can now talk about the far more important issue.

... that he and Crowley may get together and have a beer. He called Crowley just before talking to the media.

He handled it magnificently in all respects IMHO.

On TV.

On TV.

I doubt if you are aware of the fact that due to his sickness, Gates was unable to yell when the incident took place and not even the following day.

Have you thought about the purpose of using the disorderly conduct offense to arrest someone? My understanding is that the conduct could pose a potential threat to the officers or others or could cause an escalation (mob violence) in the situation.

So tell me if I am essentially correct how this situation warranted an arrest. I see no threat from anyone and the fact that Gates went out of his own house, and Gates says the officer wanted him out of the house, surely posed no threat. So we are left with an elderly man who doesn't want to quit talking and an officer whose command isn't being followed. I see no reason that calm could not have been restored without an arrest.

Authority figures get worried when their commands aren't being followed and they often resort to principle and think my principles are being violated so I have to enforce them. Since this officer still thinks he did no wrong and the situation was all one sided, I think his views on what happened are likely to be prejudiced. Of course he apparently believes he is never prejudiced because he teaches others not to be, so of course Gates has to be at fault.