是什麼非法的“東西”是政府在2001-2004年做？

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008 週三， 2008年9月17日

Glenn Greenwald -格倫格林瓦德- Salon.com salon.com | For the second consecutive day, The Washington Post has published |為連續第2天， 華盛頓郵報已出版 an excerpt 1摘錄 from reporter Barton Gellman’s從記者巴頓gellman的 new book on the Cheney Vice Presidency新著對切尼副總統 , and it provides still more details on the intense confrontation in March, 2004 between the Bush Justice Department and the Cheney-led White House over the DOJ’s refusal to certify the legality of the NSA’s domestic spying activities. ，它提供了更詳細的激烈對抗，在2004年3月之間，布什司法部和切尼領導的白宮，美國司法部拒絕證明的合法性，國家安全局的國內間諜活動。 As has been known ever since作為已眾所周知，自從 Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified before the Senate in May, 2007副總檢察長詹姆斯Comey ）作證之前，美國參議院在2007年5月 , all of the top-level DOJ officials — including Attorney General John Ashcroft, Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller — told President Bush they would resign immediately because Bush ordered the NSA surveillance program to continue even after his own Justice Department told him it was patently illegal . ，所有的高層律政司官員-其中包括美國司法部長阿什克羅夫特， C omey）和聯邦調查局局長羅伯特米勒-告訴布什總統，他們會立刻辭職，因為布什下令國家安全局的監察計劃繼續，甚至後，他自己的司法部告訴他，這是很明顯非法的 。 Comey Comey ） drafted his resignation letter起草辭職信 , calling Bush’s spying activities “an apocalyptic situation” because he had “been asked to be a part of something that is fundamentally wrong.” ，呼籲布什的間諜活動， “一世界末日的情況” ，因為他已“被要求一部份的東西，這是根本錯誤的” 。

Such an en masse resignation in the middle of an election year was averted only when Bush finally agreed to change certain aspects of the surveillance program in order to persuade these DOJ officials to endorse its legality.這種集體辭職在中東的一個選舉年，避免了只有當布什終於同意改變某些方面的監察計劃，以便說服這些律政司官員贊同其合法性。 The illegal NSA spying program revealed by The New York Times in December, 2005 that created so much political controversy — whereby the Bush administration was spying on Americans without the warrants required by law — was a program that was actually endorsed and authorized by these same DOJ officials.非法的國家安全局監聽計劃顯示，由新的紐約時報在2005年12月創造了這麼多的政治爭論-即布什政府正在刺探有關美國人沒有認股權證的法律規定-是一個程序，實際上是贊同，並授權由這些相同的律政司官員。 The program we learned about was the “compromise” program that Bush implemented in 2004 in order to avoid their resignation.該計劃，我們了解是“妥協”計劃，布什於2004年實施，以避免他們的辭職。 That’s how extreme — what right-wing, executive-power-loving ideologues — these DOJ officials are: they are the ones who authorized and endorsed the illegal NSA program that we came to learn about.這是如何的極端-什麼右翼，行政權力的愛好理論家-這是美國司法部官員的是：他們是誰的授權，並獲得通過非法的國家安全局的計劃，我們來了解。

But whatever it was that the Bush administration was doing in spying on Americans for years prior to March, 2004 was so extreme, so patently illegal, so unconscionable that even these right-wing DOJ Bush appointees, who approved of the ultimate warrantless eavesdropping program , were ready to resign en masse if those spying activities continued.但無論如何，這是說，布什政府這樣做是在從事間諜活動的美國人對多年之前， 2004年3月是如此極端，因此，很明顯是非法的，因此，不合情理，即使這些右翼律政司布什任命的，誰批准的最終授權的竊聽計劃 ，正準備集體辭職 ，如果這些間諜活動仍在繼續。 Here is how Gellman, in his book, describes the March, 2004 “compromise” that resulted in the “less illegal” and less extreme NSA spying program that the DOJ officials approved:這裡是如何gellman ，在他的書中，描述了2004年3月“妥協” ，導致在“少非法的”和極端的國家安全局監聽計劃表示，美國司法部官員的批准：

The FBI director was no more tractable than Comey.聯邦調查局主任沒有更多tractable比Comey ）。 This was a rule-of-law question, he told the president, and the answer was in the Justice Department.這是一個法治的問題，他告訴總統，答案是在美國司法部。 The FBI could not participate in operations that Justice held to be in breach of criminal law.美國聯邦調查局不能參加作戰的正義舉行將在違反刑法。 If those were [the President's] orders, he would respectfully take his leave.如果那些人[總統的]的訂單，他會尊重他的離開。 . 。 . 。 . 。
Seven days later, Bush amended his March 11 directive.七天後，布什修訂，他3月11日指令。 The legal certification belonged again to the attorney general. The surveillance program stopped doing some things, and it did other things differently .法律認證屬於再次向總檢察長。 監視程序停止做一些事情，並沒有其他的東西不同 。 Much of the operation remained in place.大部分的運作仍留在地方。 Not all of it.並非所有的資訊科技。

Think about that: in order to persuade the DOJ officials not to resign, “the surveillance program stopped doing some things, and it did other things differently.” What “things” did the NSA stop doing in March, 2004 — and what “things” did it start doing differently — in order to convince Ashcroft, Mueller and Comey to remain in their jobs?想一想：在以說服美國司法部官員不要辭職， “監察計劃停止做一些事情，並沒有其他的東西不同。 ”什麼“東西”沒有國家安全局停止這樣做，在2004年3月-什麼“的東西， “沒有開始做不同的-在以說服阿什克羅夫特，穆勒和C omey）留在自己的工作呢？ This is one of the greatest political scandals of the Bush era — not merely the commission of these illegal acts but the fact that they remain concealed from the public – and it’s also one of the most illustrative episodes of how our Government now works, of the extreme secrecy and illegality that characterizes it at its core, and of the complicity of both parties in all of this.這是其中一個最大的政治醜聞，布什時代-不僅僅是委員會對這些非法行為，但事實上他們仍然掩蓋從公眾-這也是一個最能說明情節如何，我們的政府現在工程，的極端保密和非法性的特點，它在其核心，和共謀，雙方在所有這一切。

We know (even according to Bush’s own right-wing, highest-level DOJ officials) that, for years, the Government was violating the criminal law (ie, committing felonies) in how it spied on us, and did so in ways that were so severe that even the President’s own appointees — who proved they were willing to endorse plainly illegal spying programs — were nonetheless ready to destroy the President’s 2004 re-election bid by resigning if those activities continued.我們知道，（即使是根據布什的自己的右翼，級別最高的美國司法部官員）說，多年來，政府是違反了刑法 （即犯下重罪）在如何對我們的間諜，這樣做的方式被如此嚴重，即使是總統自己的任命-誰證明，他們願意支持顯然是非法的間諜程式-然而，準備摧毀總統的2 0 04年競選連任的出價辭職，如果這些活動繼續下去。 At least according to what the Government claims, these illegal activities — what Gellman cryptically calls “these things” — stopped in March, 2004, when Bush ordered the program changed in order to satisfy the DOJ.至少根據什麼政府宣稱，這些非法活動-什麼g ellmanc ryptically呼籲： “這些東西” -停止在2 0 04年3月，當布什下令計劃改變，以滿足美國司法部。 Thus, what possible rationale exists for continuing to conceal from the country the extreme lawbreaking in which our Government was engaged during this time — more than four years ago?因此，什麼可能的理由存在，繼續隱瞞從該國的極端違法，使我們的政府是從事在這段時間-四年多前？

Of course, we almost certainly would have learned the answers to these questions — or, at the very least, obtained a judicial ruling that the Government broke the law — had the telecom lawsuits been allowed to proceed.當然，我們幾乎可以肯定將汲取了這些問題的答案-或者，至少，獲得了司法裁決，認為政府違反了法律-電信的訴訟，被允許繼續進行。 But thanks to the Congressional leadership of both parties, with the support of both major presidential candidates (though over the opposition of the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee), those lawsuits were killed, stopped in their tracks, when the telecom industry was retroactively immunized for their lawbreaking.但由於美國國會的領導，當事雙方的支持下，與兩個主要總統候選人（雖然超過反對黨的民主黨副總統候選人），這些訴訟被打死，停止在其軌道上，當電信業是溯及既往免疫接種，為他們的違法。

At this point, it is extremely easy to understand why not only the White House and Congressional Republicans, but also the Democratic leadership, was so eager to ensure that this law-breaking remain concealed from the public and that there are never any consequences for it.在這一點上，這是非常容易理解為什麼不僅白宮和國會共和黨人，而且民主黨的領導下，是如此渴望，以確保這項違法仍然隱瞞了公眾和有沒有任何的後果，它。 It’s because,這是因為， as is true for so much of the Bush radicalism and lawbreaking over the years由於是真正的為這麼多的布什激進主義和違法多年來 , top Democrats were ，頂端民主黨人 fully aware of what was taking place充分意識到什麼正在發生 and either explicitly endorsed the lawbreaking or, with full complicity, allowed it to continue.要么明確贊同或違法，充分共謀，允許它繼續。 In his book, Gellman details a March 10, 2004 meeting convened by Dick Cheney regarding the DOJ’s objections to the NSA surveillance programs — in which various Bush national security officials were present along with “the four ranking members of the House and the Senate, and the chairmen and vice chairmen of the intelligence committees” — and this is what Gellman writes:在他的書中， gellman詳情2004年3月10日召開的一次會議上切尼關於美國司法部的反對國家安全局的監視計劃-在各種布什的國家安全官員當時在場隨著“四個排名眾議院議員和參議院，以及主席和副主席的情報委員會“ -這是什麼g ellman寫道：

With a nod from Cheney, [then-NSA Director Gen. Michael Hayden] walked through the program’s vital mission.與一點頭，從切尼， [當時的美國國家安全局主任上將邁克爾海登]步行通過該計劃的重要使命。 Gonzales said top lawyers at the NSA and Justice had green-lighted the program from the beginning.岡薩雷斯說，頂端的律師在美國國家安全局和司法綠色明亮的計劃從一開始。 Now Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was in the hospital, and James B. Comey, Ashcroft’s deputy, refused to certify that the surveillance was legal.現在總檢察長約翰阿什克羅夫特是在醫院裡，和James Comey ）乙，阿什克羅夫特的副手，拒絕出具證明，證明監察是合法的。
That was misleading at best.這是誤導，在最好的。 Cheney and Gonzales knew that Comey spoke for Ashcroft as well.切尼和岡薩雷斯知道Comey ）發言阿什克羅夫特以及。 They also knew, but chose not to mention, that Jack L. Goldsmith, chief of the Office of Legal Counsel at Justice, had been warning of major legal problems for months.他們也知道，但選擇不提，傑克屬金，辦公室主任，法律顧問在司法，已警告，主要的法律問題，為個月。
More than three years later, Gonzales would testify that there was “consensus in the room” from the lawmakers, “who said, ‘Despite the recommendation of the deputy attorney general, go forward with these very important intelligence activities.’” By this account — disputed by participants from both parties — four Democrats and four Republicans counseled Cheney to press on with a program that Justice called illegal .三年多後，岡薩雷斯將作證有“的共識，在房間內”從國會議員， “誰說， '儘管的建議，副檢察長，往前走，與這些非常重要的情報活動” 。由此帳戶-有爭議的與會者來自雙方-四民主黨人和共和黨人4輔導切尼記者，就與程序正義的所謂非法。
In fact, Cheney asked the lawmakers a question that came close to answering itself.事實上，在切尼要求國會議員的問題，接近回答本身。 Could the House and Senate amend surveillance laws without raising suspicions that a new program had been launched?可以眾議院和參議院的修改監察法不需提高懷疑一項新的計劃已經展開？ The obvious reply became a new rationale for keeping Congress out.明顯的答复，成為新的理據保持國會。

Though there is dispute about whether these members of Congress expressly endorsed the continuation of the illegal program, there is no dispute that the meeting took place and that these members were repeatedly briefed on the spying program — not only after 2004, but before 2004.雖然有糾紛，是否這些美國國會議員明確表示贊同繼續非法程序，有不爭的事實舉行了一次會議，並表示，這些委員多次聽取了有關竊聽計劃-不僅是2 004年以後，但在2 004年之前。 This specific meeting described by Gellman, and the briefings generally, included Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Steney Hoyer, and Jay Rockefeller — all of whom voted to put an end to the telecom lawsuits (and thereby ensure that these crimes remain concealed), and the latter two of whom were, far and away, the key forces behind the new law that killed the lawsuits looking into these spying activities (and then本次會議的具體描述gellman ，和一般的簡報，包括佩洛西，哈曼， steney hoyer ，和傑伊洛克菲勒-所有這些人都投贊成票，以結束電信的訴訟（從而確保這些罪行保持隱蔽），以及後兩個人，遠遠遠離，關鍵勢力背後的新法律，這項法律死亡的訴訟尋找到這些間諜活動，（然後 joined Bush and Cheney at a festive, bipartisan White House signing ceremony to celebrate their joint victory加入布什和切尼在一個節日，兩黨在白宮的簽署儀式，以慶祝他們聯合的勝利 ). ）。

If we had an even minimally transparent and open government, or an even theoretically extant opposition party, it would be unthinkable that these crimes would remain concealed, uninvestigated and unpunished.如果我們有一個甚至微透明和公開的政府，或什至在理論上現存的在野黨，它會不堪設想，這些罪行將繼續隱蔽， uninvestigated和受到懲罰。 Instead, we have deeply corrupt and complicit leadership in both parties that act in unison to protect the culpable actors (ie, themselves), while neither reporters nor citizens seem particularly interested in learning about the illegal “things” our Government did for years in spying on us and our communications.相反，我們深深舞弊及共犯的領導，在雙方的這一行徑異口同聲地保護罪責的行動者（即自己），而既不是記者也不是公民，似乎特別有興趣學習有關的非法“的事情： ”我們的政府沒有為年在從事間諜活動對我們和我們的通訊。 Did they listen in on our exclusively domestic calls, read our emails, do physical searches by breaking into our homes all without warrants, engage in other types of equally intrusive and illegal surveillance?他們在聽我們的專門國內電話，請閱讀我們的電子郵件，這樣做的物理搜尋闖入我們的家園，所有沒有逮捕證，從事其他類型的同樣的侵擾和非法監視？

As former DOJ official Marty Lederman wrote last year in the wake of the Comey revelations — after detailing how extraordinary were these threats to resign from these right-wing DOJ officials — in正如前美國司法部官員馬蒂萊德曼寫道，去年在因應Comey ）的啟示-經過詳細說明如何不平凡的被這些威脅辭職，從這些右翼律政司官員-在 a post entitled: “Can You Even Imagine How Bad it Must Have Been?”一個職位，題為： “你能想像有多糟糕，它必須是被” ？ : ：

If that’s the narrow version of the NSA program, just how broad and indiscriminate was the surveillance under the program that Ashcroft, et al.如果這是狹隘的版本的國家安全局的計劃，只是如何廣泛和不分青紅皂白地被監視下的程序阿什克羅夫特，等人。 would not approve?會不會批准？ . 。 . 。 . 。 This is the real heart of the Comey story — What happened between September 2001 and October 2003, before Comey and Goldmsith came aboard?這才是真正的核心部分Comey ）的故事-發生了什麼2 001年9月至2 003年1 0月，前C omey）和g oldmsith來到船上呢？ Just how radical were the Administration’s legal judgments?如何根治被政府當局的法律判決？ How extreme were the programs they implemented?如何極端的人的程序，他們實施？ How egregious was the lawbreaking?如何令人震驚的是違法？

We still have no idea, and we (meaning our political and media class) don’t seem to care all that much.我們仍然不知道，我們（指我們的政治和媒體班）似乎並不照顧所有的那麼多。 We know the President committed felonies by engaging in activities which his own ideologically-sympathetic DOJ officials declared were violative of the criminal law.我們知道，總統承諾的重罪，從事的活動，其中他自己在思想上-同情司法部官員宣布，分別為違反刑事法。 We know this went on for years, and that he stopped only when it became clear that his political career would be destroyed by massive DOJ resignations if he continued.我們知道，這一過程持續了多年，他停止了，只有當人們清楚地看到他的政治生涯會被銷毀大規模律政司辭職，如果他繼續。 But we are content not to know what he did, what the extent of the lawbreaking was, and what was done with the criminally-obtained information about US citizens.但我們的內容不知道他的所作所為，什麼程度是違法，什麼是做與刑事責任-獲得資訊的美國公民。

Have Your Say: What illegal “things” was the government doing in 2001-2004? 你說：什麼非法的“東西”是政府在2001-2004年做？
Please read our請閱讀我們的 posting guidelines before posting發布指引，然後再發布 . 。
Alternatively或者 you can discuss this report here您可以討論此報告在這裡 . 。

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL 跟踪 RUI

Related News 相關新聞

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 17th, 2008 at 6:23 pm and is filed under此項目被張貼在週三， 2008年9月17日在下午6時23分，並提交下 Breaking News突發新聞 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the您可以按照任何的反應，此項目通過 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed.餵養。 You can您可以 leave a response留下的回應 , or ，或 trackback Trackback跟踪 from your own site.從你自己的網站。

TOP NEWS DISCUSSIONS top新聞討論	LATEST NEWS DISCUSSIONS 最新消息討論	LATEST FORUM TOPICS 最新的論壇主題
Playing with the Constitution 玩弄憲法 September 20th: Stop The War Coalition Demonstration in Manchester 9月20日：停止戰爭聯盟在曼徹斯特示範 What You Can Do to Put Bush and Cheney Behind Bars 您能做什麼把布什和切尼的背後酒吧 Government whittles down ID scheme suppliers 政府whittles下跌編號計劃的供應商 Remembering 9/11 and Moving Forward 記住9 / 11和邁步向前 BNP accounts don’t add up 銀行帳目不添加了 Blizzard of Lies 暴雪的謊言 Irish politicians back calls for universal arms trade treaty 愛爾蘭政客回到呼籲世界軍火貿易條約 Coca-Cola to Phase Out Toxic Sodium Benzoate in the UK 可口可樂淘汰有毒苯甲酸鈉，在英國 Conference To Shape Plans For Obtaining Prosecutions Of High-Level US War Criminals 會議形成的計劃獲得檢控的高級別美國的戰爭罪犯 Record Corporate Bailout Reveals the Bankruptcy of American Capitalism 記錄企業的救助，揭示了破產的美國資本主義 NOAM CHOMSKY: Towards a Second Cold War? 諾姆喬姆斯基：實現人人共享的第二次冷戰？	Zhu Bajie 朱bajie commented on: 評論： Government whittles down ID scheme suppliers 政府whittles下跌編號計劃的供應商 Will the contract go to Blair’s or Brown’s brother-in-law? 將合同到布萊爾的或棕色的姐夫呢？ Zhu Bajie 朱bajie Continue Reading & Reply 繼續讀＆答复 Zhu Bajie 朱bajie commented on: 評論： NOAM CHOMSKY: Towards a Second Cold War? 諾姆喬姆斯基：實現人人共享的第二次冷戰？ Don’t forget that the apocalyptic figures Gog and Magog are usually placed in the... 不要忘記，該世界末日數字gog和magog通常放置在... Continue Reading & Reply 繼續讀＆答复 John 約翰 commented on: 評論： US military trained Georgian commandos 美國軍事訓練的格魯吉亞突擊隊 take a look at these pictures that fully validate what you are saying… http://www.g... 採取看看這些圖片，充分驗證了什麼你說… http://www.g ... Continue Reading & Reply 繼續讀＆答复 ajit8 ajit8 commented on: 評論： Irish politicians back calls for universal arms trade treaty 愛爾蘭政客回到呼籲世界軍火貿易條約 Published on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 by One World.net Worldwide, Civilians... 發表於週三， 2008年9月17日由一world.net世界各地，平民... Continue Reading & Reply 繼續讀＆答复

ADVERTISEMENTS廣告		SITE MAPS網站地圖
Web Desing & Hosting UK , USA, Europe網頁設計與託管英國，美國，歐洲 WOWEB - Web Design woweb -網頁設計 FAST GATEWAY - Web Hosting快速通道-虛擬主機 INFOTX - Web Hosting Guides and Resources infotx -虛擬主機指南和資源 ASHLEY GUEST HOUSE - Morecambe Guest House亞士厘招待所-m orecambe招待所 Skin up marijuana cannabis weed forum皮膚了大麻，大麻雜草論壇	Linux Web Hosting Linux的虛擬主機 Never Be Lied To Again!永遠不會說謊，再次！ Subliminal Secrets Exposed潛意識的秘密暴露 Holographic Creation: Your Own Reality全息創造：你自己的現實 Masonic Secrets Revealed共濟會秘密透露 What You Aren't Supposed To Know什麼你是不是要知道	7/7 7 / 7 Afghanistan阿富汗 Alternative-Energy替代能源 Art藝術 Barack Obama巴拉克奧巴馬 BBC英國廣播公司 Big-Brother大哥哥 Bilderberg 。 Bilderberg Biometrics生物識別技術 Bush布什 Censorship檢查 CIA美國中央情報局 Climate-Change氣候變化 Cover-Up包括後續 Cults邪教 Culture文化 Database-State數據庫的國家 David-Hicks大衛-希克斯 David-Ray-Griffin大衛-射線-格里芬 Debt債務 Democrats同盟 Demos演示 Drugs藥物 Education教育 Entertainment娛樂 Environmental News環境新聞 EU歐盟 False-Flag假旗 FBI美國聯邦調查局 Fraud欺詐 Free-Speech免費的講話 Freemasons共濟會 G8八國集團 Globalization全球化 Guantanamo關塔那摩 Health-News健康新聞 History歷史 ID-Cards編號賀卡 Internet互聯網 Iran伊朗 Iraq伊拉克 Israel以色列 John McCain約翰麥凱恩 Law法律 Marches遊行 Media News新聞 MI5軍情五處 MI6軍情六處 Microsoft微軟 Military軍事 MoD按付款當日價格計算 Money金錢 Music音樂 NASA美國航天局 Neocons新保守主義者 New World Order世界新秩序 NSA美國國家安全局 Oil石油 Pakistan巴基斯坦 Podcast播客 Police-State警察國家 Propaganda宣傳 RFID的RFID RINF rinf Rumsfeld拉姆斯菲爾德 Science科學 Science & Technology News科技新聞 Secrecy保密 Security安全 Slavery奴役 Space空間 Sports體育 Spy間諜 Spying諜報活動 Stephen-Lendman史蒂芬- lendman Technology技術 Terrorism恐怖主義 Tony-Blair托尼-布萊爾 Torture酷刑 TV電視 UK-News英國新聞 UN聯合國 USA-美國- USA-News美國新聞 Video視頻 Voting投票 war戰爭 War & Terrorism News戰爭和恐怖主義新聞 Warfare戰 White-House白房子 Wolfowitz沃爾福威茨 World-News世界新聞 Yahoo雅虎 2003 - 2005 Archives 2003 -2 005檔案 \| 2005 - 2007 Archives 2005年-2 007年檔案 \| 2007 - 2008 Archives 2007 -2 008檔案 \| Current Archives目前檔案 \| Past Version \|過去的版本

What illegal “things” was the government doing in 2001-2004?是什麼非法的“東西”是政府在2001-2004年做？