In today's weekly radio address President Bush provided a rare live speech in answer to yesterday's big NY Times story used to deflect attention from the Iraqi elections, and to the filibustering of the PATRIOT Act in the Senate. The video of the brief speech is here. It is a forceful and considered answer to those who are shocked at the NSA activities. That portion is reprinted below.
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.
The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.
The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.
The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.
This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.
The comments relating to the classified nature of the program, and to the leaking and publishing on its existence, are a warning shot across the bow of the Old Gray Lady and to the officials who provided the information. If 'leaking' Valerie Plame's identity can require a special counsel investigation then the leaking of classified anti-terror activities such as this is surely worth investigating and prosecuting. The Times held this story for a year; that they published it now, after being advised not to publish it by the White House, is very interesting.
In addition, the President tries to reassure regarding the likely misconceptions after the Times story yesterday. The program has been re-authorized regularly. It has been discussed with leaders in Congress. It has been under Justice Department review since its inception. It is reviewed regularly, including review of the actual surveillance under the act, to ensure that its use is appropriate. This program is not a secret Bush program for spying on regular Americans according to his words here, much to the chagrin of the Times, who headlined their article "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts."
The Times is aware that Congress has been advised about the program since inception, but chose to make Bush the focus. Those Congressional leaders conveniently were unavailable or declined to comment, apparently over the course of the year that the NY Times has been sitting on the information.
In fact, the Times adds this:
A senior government official recalled that he was taken aback when he first learned of the operation. "My first reaction was, 'We're doing what?' " he said. While he said he eventually felt that adequate safeguards were put in place, he added that questions about the program's legitimacy were understandable.
I see. Even one of the leakers of this classified information, though he had concerns about the program, felt that "adequate safeguards" existed.
Mr. Bush is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If he doesn't authorize such an activity, and Americans are hit again with a terrorist act then he will be seen as insufficiently concerned with his responsibility as Commander in Chief. Is he does authorize such an activity and no terrorist strike occurs he is seen as trampling on civil rights. Which would you prefer?
12/17/05 1410: Ace Of Spades pegs the yet-to-be-identified members of Congress for attention.
It's time to identify them. Let the country know these people were kept in the loop and did not voice objections. And then, for purely political reasons, at the expense of sabotaging our nation's security, they attacked the President for doing what they acquiesced in, or let their confederates do the dirty work for them.
There are real questions about civil liberties and national security and the necessary tradeoffs each requires. But no genuine debate can be had with the Disloyal Opposition engaging in such dishonestly partisan sniping at every turn.
And Rick Moran asks a pertinent question. Who leaked?
12/17/05 1640: More - Jeff Goldstein, via the Mudville Gazette. Jeff makes a couple of pertinent points, hinted at above.
Question: Will these same outraged “civil libertarians” save some of that outrage for the leakers should it turn out that what was leaked was Constitutionally permissable and legal—and that the leak itself is the real crime here, one that damaged our national security?
and
The NYT story doesn’t suggest the administration did anything illegal
No, it doesn't. In fact, it suggests quite the opposite when carefully read.
Jeff also links a post from blogger Charles Martin, where it's suggested that the NY Times, in their zeal to break a story of a President acting within his prerogative in conducting a war, may have violated the Espionage Act.
12/17/05 2305: It looks like it was a three-fer for the Times. They pushed the Iraqi election down the newsladder, promoted the soon-to-be-released book of their columnist, and spiked the hated PATRIOT Act. Champagne all around!
12/18/05 1500: Ed Morrissey questions the efforts, motivation, wisdom and timing of the NY Times.
AFP - Thu Dec 15,11:38 AM ET 
