Text 1893, 630 rader
Skriven 2005-12-19 23:33:14 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0512191) for Mon, 2005 Dec 19
====================================================
===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael
Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 19, 2005

Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael
Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence
James S. Brady Briefing Room



8:30 A.M. EST

MR. McCLELLAN: Good morning, everybody. I've got with me the Attorney
General and General Hayden here this morning to brief you on the legal
issues surrounding the NSA authorization and take whatever questions you
have for them on that. The Attorney General will open with some comments
and then they'll be glad to take your questions.

And with that, I'll turn it over to General Gonzales.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Thanks, Scott.

The President confirmed the existence of a highly classified program on
Saturday. The program remains highly classified; there are many operational
aspects of the program that have still not been disclosed and we want to
protect that because those aspects of the program are very, very important
to protect the national security of this country. So I'm only going to be
talking about the legal underpinnings for what has been disclosed by the
President.

The President has authorized a program to engage in electronic surveillance
of a particular kind, and this would be the intercepts of contents of
communications where one of the -- one party to the communication is
outside the United States. And this is a very important point -- people are
running around saying that the United States is somehow spying on American
citizens calling their neighbors. Very, very important to understand that
one party to the communication has to be outside the United States.

Another very important point to remember is that we have to have a
reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a
member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an
organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.
We view these authorities as authorities to confront the enemy in which the
United States is at war with -- and that is al Qaeda and those who are
supporting or affiliated with al Qaeda.

What we're trying to do is learn of communications, back and forth, from
within the United States to overseas with members of al Qaeda. And that's
what this program is about.

Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of
surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on
Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise
authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our
position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by
the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other
authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of
signals intelligence.

Now, that -- one might argue, now, wait a minute, there's nothing in the
authorization to use force that specifically mentions electronic
surveillance. Let me take you back to a case that the Supreme Court
reviewed this past -- in 2004, the Hamdi decision. As you remember, in that
case, Mr. Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who was contesting his detention by the
United States government. What he said was that there is a statute, he
said, that specifically prohibits the detention of American citizens
without permission, an act by Congress -- and he's right, 18 USC 4001a
requires that the United States government cannot detain an American
citizen except by an act of Congress.

We took the position -- the United States government took the position that
Congress had authorized that detention in the authorization to use force,
even though the authorization to use force never mentions the word
"detention." And the Supreme Court, a plurality written by Justice O'Connor
agreed. She said, it was clear and unmistakable that the Congress had
authorized the detention of an American citizen captured on the battlefield
as an enemy combatant for the remainder -- the duration of the hostilities.
So even though the authorization to use force did not mention the word,
"detention," she felt that detention of enemy soldiers captured on the
battlefield was a fundamental incident of waging war, and therefore, had
been authorized by Congress when they used the words, "authorize the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force."

For the same reason, we believe signals intelligence is even more a
fundamental incident of war, and we believe has been authorized by the
Congress. And even though signals intelligence is not mentioned in the
authorization to use force, we believe that the Court would apply the same
reasoning to recognize the authorization by Congress to engage in this kind
of electronic surveillance.

I might also add that we also believe the President has the inherent
authority under the Constitution, as Commander-in-Chief, to engage in this
kind of activity. Signals intelligence has been a fundamental aspect of
waging war since the Civil War, where we intercepted telegraphs, obviously,
during the world wars, as we intercepted telegrams in and out of the United
States. Signals intelligence is very important for the United States
government to know what the enemy is doing, to know what the enemy is about
to do. It is a fundamental incident of war, as Justice O'Connor talked
about in the Hamdi decision. We believe that -- and those two authorities
exist to allow, permit the United States government to engage in this kind
of surveillance.

The President, of course, is very concerned about the protection of civil
liberties, and that's why we've got strict parameters, strict guidelines in
place out at NSA to ensure that the program is operating in a way that is
consistent with the President's directives. And, again, the authorization
by the President is only to engage in surveillance of communications where
one party is outside the United States, and where we have a reasonable
basis to conclude that one of the parties of the communication is either a
member of al Qaeda or affiliated with al Qaeda.

Mike, do you want to -- have anything to add?

GENERAL HAYDEN: I'd just add, in terms of what we do globally with regard
to signals intelligence, which is a critical part of defending the nation,
there are probably no communications more important to what it is we're
trying to do to defend the nation; no communication is more important for
that purpose than those communications that involve al Qaeda, and one end
of which is inside the homeland, one end of which is inside the United
States. Our purpose here is to detect and prevent attacks. And the program
in this regard has been successful.

Q General, are you able to say how many Americans were caught in this
surveillance?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not -- I can't get into the specific numbers
because that information remains classified. Again, this is not a situation
where -- of domestic spying. To the extent that there is a moderate and
heavy communication involving an American citizen, it would be a
communication where the other end of the call is outside the United States
and where we believe that either the American citizen or the person outside
the United States is somehow affiliated with al Qaeda.

Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and
obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our
position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular
case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court
order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization
has occurred.

The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the
agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of
enemy. You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978.
There have been tremendous advances in technology --

Q But it's been kind of retroactively, hasn't it?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: -- since then. Pardon me?

Q It's been done retroactively before, hasn't it?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: What do you mean, "retroactively"?

Q You just go ahead and then you apply for the FISA clearance, because it's
damn near automatic.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: If we -- but there are standards that have to be
met, obviously, and you're right, there is a procedure where we -- an
emergency procedure that allows us to make a decision to authorize -- to
utilize FISA, and then we go to the court and get confirmation of that
authority.

But, again, FISA is very important in the war on terror, but it doesn't
provide the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal
with this new kind of threat.

Q But what -- go ahead.

GENERAL HAYDEN: Let me just add to the response to the last question. As
the Attorney General says, FISA is very important, we make full use of
FISA. But if you picture what FISA was designed to do, FISA is designed to
handle the needs in the nation in two broad categories: there's a law
enforcement aspect of it; and the other aspect is the continued collection
of foreign intelligence. I don't think anyone could claim that FISA was
envisaged as a tool to cover armed enemy combatants in preparation for
attacks inside the United States. And that's what this authorization under
the President is designed to help us do.

Q Have you identified armed enemy combatants, through this program, in the
United States?

GENERAL HAYDEN: This program has been successful in detecting and
preventing attacks inside the United States.

Q General Hayden, I know you're not going to talk about specifics about
that, and you say it's been successful. But would it have been as
successful -- can you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or
there was an imminent attack or you got information through this that you
could not have gotten through going to the court?

GENERAL HAYDEN: I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got
information through this program that would not otherwise have been
available.

Q Through the court? Because of the speed that you got it?

GENERAL HAYDEN: Yes, because of the speed, because of the procedures,
because of the processes and requirements set up in the FISA process, I can
say unequivocally that we have used this program in lieu of that and this
program has been successful.

Q But one of the things that concerns people is the slippery slope. If you
said you absolutely need this program, you have to do it quickly -- then if
you have someone you suspect being a member of al Qaeda, and they're in the
United States, and there is a phone call between two people in the United
States, why not use that, then, if it's so important? Why not go that
route? Why not go further?

GENERAL HAYDEN: Across the board, there is a judgment that we all have to
make -- and I made this speech a day or two after 9/11 to the NSA workforce
-- I said, free peoples always have to judge where they want to be on that
spectrum between security and liberty; that there will be great pressures
on us after those attacks to move our national banner down in the direction
of security. What I said to the NSA workforce is, our job is to keep
Americans free by making Americans feel safe again. That's been the mission
of the National Security Agency since the day after the attack, is when I
talked -- two days after the attack is when I said that to the workforce.

There's always a balancing between security and liberty. We understand that
this is a more -- I'll use the word "aggressive" program than would be
traditionally available under FISA. It is also less intrusive. It deals
only with international calls. It is generally for far shorter periods of
time. And it is not designed to collect reams of intelligence, but to
detect and warn and prevent about attacks. And, therefore, that's where
we've decided to draw that balance between security and liberty.

Q Gentlemen, can you say when Congress was first briefed, who was included
in that, and will there be a leaks investigation?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well of course, we're not going to -- we don't
talk about -- we try not to talk about investigations. As to whether or not
there will be a leak investigation, as the President indicated, this is
really hurting national security, this has really hurt our country, and we
are concerned that a very valuable tool has been compromised. As to whether
or not there will be a leak investigation, we'll just have to wait and see.

And your first question was?

Q When was Congress first briefed --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not going to -- I'm not going to talk about
-- I'll let others talk about when Congress was first briefed. What I can
say is, as the President indicated on Saturday, there have been numerous
briefings with certain key members of Congress. Obviously, some members
have come out since the revelations on Saturday, saying that they hadn't
been briefed. This is a very classified program. It is probably the most
classified program that exists in the United States government, because the
tools are so valuable, and therefore, decisions were made to brief only key
members of Congress. We have begun the process now of reaching out to other
members of Congress. I met last night, for example, with Chairman Specter
and other members of Congress to talk about the legal aspects of this
program.

And so we are engaged in a dialogue now to talk with Congress, but also --
but we're still mindful of the fact that still -- this is still a very
highly classified program, and there are still limits about what we can say
today, even to certain members of Congress.

Q General, what's really compromised by the public knowledge of this
program? Don't you assume that the other side thinks we're listening to
them? I mean, come on.

GENERAL HAYDEN: The fact that this program has been successful is proof to
me that what you claim to be an assumption is certainly not universal. The
more we discuss it, the more we put it in the face of those who would do us
harm, the more they will respond to this and protect their communications
and make it more difficult for us to defend the nation.

Q Mr. Attorney General --

Q -- became public, have you seen any evidence in a change in the tactics
or --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: We're not going to comment on that kind of
operational aspect.

Q You say this has really hurt the American people. Is that based only on
your feeling about it, or is there some empirical evidence to back that up,
even if you can't --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I think the existence of this program, the
confirmation of the -- I mean, the fact that this program exists, in my
judgment, has compromised national security, as the President indicated on
Saturday.

Q I'd like to ask you, what are the constitutional limits on this power
that you see laid out in the statute and in your inherent constitutional
war power? And what's to prevent you from just listening to everyone's
conversation and trying to find the word "bomb," or something like that?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, that's a good question. This was a
question that was raised in some of my discussions last night with members
of Congress. The President has not authorized -- has not authorized blanket
surveillance of communications here in the United States. He's been very
clear about the kind of surveillance that we're going to engage in. And
that surveillance is tied with our conflict with al Qaeda.

You know, we feel comfortable that this surveillance is consistent with
requirements of the 4th Amendment. The touchstone of the 4th Amendment is
reasonableness, and the Supreme Court has long held that there are
exceptions to the warrant requirement in -- when special needs outside the
law enforcement arena. And we think that that standard has been met here.
When you're talking about communications involving al Qaeda, when you --
obviously there are significant privacy interests implicated here, but we
think that those privacy interests have been addressed; when you think
about the fact that this is an authorization that's ongoing, it's not a
permanent authorization, it has to be reevaluated from time to time. There
are additional safeguards that have been in place -- that have been imposed
out at NSA, and we believe that it is a reasonable application of these
authorities.

Q Mr. Attorney General, haven't you stretched --

Q -- adequate because of technological advances? Wouldn't you do the
country a better service to address that issue and fix it, instead of doing
a backdoor approach --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: This is not a backdoor approach. We believe
Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions
with Congress in the past -- certain members of Congress -- as to whether
or not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this kind
of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if not
impossible.

Q If this is not backdoor, is this at least a judgment call? Can you see
why other people would look at it and say, well, no, we don't see it that
way?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I think some of the concern is because people
had not been briefed; they don't understand the specifics of the program,
they don't understand the strict safeguards within the program. And I
haven't had a discussion -- an opportunity to have a discussion with them
about our legal analysis. So, obviously, we're in that process now. Part of
the reason for this press brief today is to have you help us educate the
American people and the American Congress about what we're doing and the
legal basis for what we're doing.

Q Al, you talk about the successes and the critical intercepts of the
program. Have there also been cases in which after listening in or
intercepting, you realize you had the wrong guy and you listened to what
you shouldn't have?

GENERAL HAYDEN: That's why I mentioned earlier that the program is less
intrusive. It deals only with international calls. The time period in which
we would conduct our work is much shorter, in general, overall, than it
would be under FISA. And one of the true purposes of this is to be very
agile, as you described.

If this particular line of logic, this reasoning that took us to this place
proves to be inaccurate, we move off of it right away.

Q Are there cases in which --

GENERAL HAYDEN: Yes, of course.

Q Can you give us some idea of percentage, or how often you get it right
and how often you get it wrong?

GENERAL HAYDEN: No, it would be very -- no, I cannot, without getting into
the operational details. I'm sorry.

Q But there are cases where you wind up listening in where you realize you
shouldn't have?

GENERAL HAYDEN: There are cases like we do with regard to the global SIGIN
system -- you have reasons to go after particular activities, particular
communications. There's a logic; there is a standard as to why you would go
after that, not just in a legal sense, which is very powerful, but in a
practical sense. We can't waste resources on targets that simply don't
provide valuable information. And when we decide that is the case -- and in
this program, the standards, in terms of re-evaluating whether or not this
coverage is worthwhile at all, are measured in days and weeks.

Q Would someone in a case in which you got it wrong have a cause of action
against the government?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That is something I'm not going to answer, Ken.

Q I wanted to ask you a question. Do you think the government has the right
to break the law?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Absolutely not. I don't believe anyone is above
the law.

Q You have stretched this resolution for war into giving you carte blanche
to do anything you want to do.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, one might make that same argument in
connection with detention of American citizens, which is far more intrusive
than listening into a conversation. There may be some members of Congress
who might say, we never --

Q That's your interpretation. That isn't Congress' interpretation.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I'm just giving you the analysis --

Q You're never supposed to spy on Americans.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm just giving the analysis used by Justice
O'Connor -- and she said clearly and unmistakenly the Congress authorized
the President of the United States to detain an American citizen, even
though the authorization to use force never mentions the word "detention"
--

Q -- into wiretapping everybody and listening in on --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: This is not about wiretapping everyone. This is
a very concentrated, very limited program focused at gaining information
about our enemy.

Q Now that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, do you expect your legal
analysis to be tested in the courts?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not going to, you know, try to guess as to
what's going to happen about that. We're going to continue to try to
educate the American people and the American Congress about what we're
doing and the basis -- why we believe that the President has the authority
to engage in this kind of conduct.

Q Because there are some very smart legal minds who clearly think a law has
been broken here.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I think that they may be making or
offering up those opinions or assumptions based on very limited
information. They don't have all the information about the program. I think
they probably don't have the information about our legal analysis.

Q Judge Gonzales, will you release then, for the reasons you're saying now,
the declassified versions of the legal rationale for this from OLC? And if
not, why not? To assure the American public that this was done with the
legal authority that you state.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: We're engaged now in a process of educating the
American people, again, and educating the Congress. We'll make the
appropriate evaluation at the appropriate time as to whether or not
additional information needs to be provided to the Congress or the American
people.

Q You declassified OLC opinions before, after the torture -- why not do
that here to show, yes, we went through a process?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I'm not confirming the existence of opinions or
the non-existence of opinions. I've offered up today our legal analysis of
the authorities of this President.

Q Sir, can you explain, please, the specific inadequacies in FISA that have
prevented you from sort of going through the normal channels?

GENERAL HAYDEN: One, the whole key here is agility. And let me re-trace
some grounds I tried to suggest earlier. FISA was built for persistence.
FISA was built for long-term coverage against known agents of an enemy
power. And the purpose involved in each of those -- in those cases was
either for a long-term law enforcement purpose or a long-term intelligence
purpose.

This program isn't for that. This is to detect and prevent. And here the
key is not so much persistence as it is agility. It's a quicker trigger.
It's a subtly softer trigger. And the intrusion into privacy -- the
intrusion into privacy is significantly less. It's only international
calls. The period of time in which we do this is, in most cases, far less
than that which would be gained by getting a court order. And our purpose
here, our sole purpose is to detect and prevent.

Again, I make the point, what we are talking about here are communications
we have every reason to believe are al Qaeda communications, one end of
which is in the United States. And I don't think any of us would want any
inefficiencies in our coverage of those kinds of communications, above all.
And that's what this program allows us to do -- it allows us to be as agile
as operationally required to cover these targets.

Q But how does FISA --

GENERAL HAYDEN: FISA involves the process -- FISA involves marshaling
arguments; FISA involves looping paperwork around, even in the case of
emergency authorizations from the Attorney General. And beyond that, it's a
little -- it's difficult for me to get into further discussions as to why
this is more optimized under this process without, frankly, revealing too
much about what it is we do and why and how we do it.

Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed
something like this legally?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had
discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about
whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that
that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get,
certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and
therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that
because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue
moving forward with this program.

Q And who determined that these targets were al Qaeda? Did you wiretap
them?

GENERAL HAYDEN: The judgment is made by the operational work force at the
National Security Agency using the information available to them at the
time, and the standard that they apply -- and it's a two-person standard
that must be signed off by a shift supervisor, and carefully recorded as to
what created the operational imperative to cover any target, but
particularly with regard to those inside the United States.

Q So a shift supervisor is now making decisions that a FISA judge would
normally make? I just want to make sure I understand. Is that what you're
saying?

GENERAL HAYDEN: What we're trying to do is to use the approach we have used
globally against al Qaeda, the operational necessity to cover targets. And
the reason I emphasize that this is done at the operational level is to
remove any question in your mind that this is in any way politically
influenced. This is done to chase those who would do harm to the United
States.

Q Building on that, during --

Q Thank you, General. Roughly when did those conversations occur with
members of Congress?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I'm not going to get into the specifics of when
those conversations occurred, but they have occurred.

Q May I just ask you if they were recently or if they were when you began
making these exceptions?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: They weren't recently.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President indicated that those -- the weeks after
September 11th.

Q What was the date, though, of the first executive order? Can you give us
that?

GENERAL HAYDEN: If I could just, before you ask that question, just add --
these actions that I described taking place at the operational level -- and
I believe that a very important point to be made -- have intense oversight
by the NSA Inspector General, by the NSA General Counsel, and by officials
of the Justice Department who routinely look into this process and verify
that the standards set out by the President are being followed.

Q Can you absolutely assure us that all of the communications intercepted
--

Q Have you said that you -- (inaudible) -- anything about this program with
your international partners -- with the partners probably in the
territories of which you intercept those communications?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I'm not aware of discussions with other
countries, but that doesn't mean that they haven't occurred. I simply have
no personal knowledge of that.

Q Also, is it only al Qaeda, or maybe some other terrorist groups?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: Again, with respect to what the President
discussed on Saturday, this program -- it is tied to communications where
we believe one of the parties is affiliated with al Qaeda or part of an
organization or group that is supportive of al Qaeda.

Q Sir, during his confirmation hearings, it came out that now-Ambassador
Bolton had sought and obtained NSA intercepts of conversations between
American citizens and others. Who gets the information from this program;
how do you guarantee that it doesn't get too widely spread inside the
government, and used for other purposes?

Q And is it destroyed afterwards?

GENERAL HAYDEN: We report this information the way we report any other
information collected by the National Security Agency. And the phrase
you're talking about is called minimization of U.S. identities. The same
minimalizationist standards apply across the board, including for this
program. To make this very clear -- U.S. identities are minimized in all of
NSA's activities, unless, of course, the U.S. identity is essential to
understand the inherent intelligence value of the intelligence report. And
that's the standard that's used.

Q General, when you discussed the emergency powers, you said, agility is
critical here. And in the case of the emergency powers, as I understand it,
you can go in, do whatever you need to do, and within 72 hours just report
it after the fact. And as you say, these may not even last very long at
all. What would be the difficulty in setting up a paperwork system in which
the logs that you say you have the shift supervisors record are simply sent
to a judge after the fact? If the judge says that this is not legitimate,
by that time probably your intercept is over, wouldn't that be correct?

GENERAL HAYDEN: What you're talking about now are efficiencies. What you're
asking me is, can we do this program as efficiently using the one avenue
provided to us by the FISA Act, as opposed to the avenue provided to us by
subsequent legislation and the President's authorization.

Our operational judgment, given the threat to the nation that the
difference in the operational efficiencies between those two sets of
authorities are such that we can provide greater protection for the nation
operating under this authorization.

Q But while you're getting an additional efficiency, you're also operating
outside of an existing law. If the law would allow you to stay within the
law and be slightly less efficient, would that be --

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I guess I disagree with that characterization. I
think that this electronic surveillance is within the law, has been
authorized. I mean, that is our position. We're only required to achieve a
court order through FISA if we don't have authorization otherwise by the
Congress, and we think that that has occurred in this particular case.

Q Can you just give us one assurance before you go, General?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: It depends on what it is. (Laughter.)

Q Can you assure us that all of these intercepts had an international
component and that at no time were any of the intercepts purely domestic?

GENERAL HAYDEN: The authorization given to NSA by the President requires
that one end of these communications has to be outside the United States. I
can assure you, by the physics of the intercept, by how we actually conduct
our activities, that one end of these communications are always outside the
United States of America.

END 9:02 A.M. EST

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)