GWB's Press Secretary explains why he needs to wiretap us

> [This is from yesterday's Press Gaggle, with Scott Stanzel]:
>
> Q: Scott, where do you go from here on the surveillance thing? Is  
> the administration prepared to do any stopgap measures while  
> Congress is away?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, it's unfortunate, as you heard the President  
> talk about this morning, that the House is departing Washington for  
> 12 days off for Presidents Day. And it is important, I think -- as  
> you heard the President, it's important to note a few things.
>
> It's our view that leaders in Washington have no greater  
> responsibility than to protect the American people. But at this  
> time, this gap that we closed six months ago is going to reopen.  
> And as Director McConnell has said, the Protect America Act has  
> helped us obtain valuable insight on terrorist activities and it  
> has led to the disruption of terrorist attacks.  And unfortunately,  
> tomorrow night that law will expire. So we will continue to work  
> with members of Congress about the importance. But the issue really  
> here is why is the House leadership, Democratic leadership,  
> blocking a bipartisan bill?
>
> Q: Are you going to reach out to the telecommunications companies  
> and ask them to keep helping you in this policy?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, those are conversations that are ongoing. And as  
> you would remember, prospective liability was passed in August, and  
> that gave liability protection to companies to assist going  
> forward. That prospective liability comes into question with the  
> expiration of the Protect America Act.
>
> So as you heard the leaders talk about, those companies are  
> increasingly reluctant to help their country and help us track the  
> activities of terrorists in foreign lands. It becomes more and more  
> difficult as time goes on to obtain their cooperation on these  
> issues, and that is of great concern.
>
> Yes, Helen?
>
> Q: What right does the President have to tell any company or any  
> person in this country to break the law?
>
> MR. STANZEL: I -- what's your point?
>
> Q: No warrants and so forth; that they can go and spy on us without  
> any warrants?
>
> MR. STANZEL: The Protect America Act was passed by Congress last  
> August, as you know, and signed into law. So it is a lawful program  
> that is expiring tomorrow night.
>
> Q: Well, if it's lawful, why would you not get a warrant? It still  
> prevails, doesn't it?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Because it's -- in 1978, as we talked about, during  
> that period, in 1978, the law, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance  
> Act, was passed, and that law was designed to help us gain  
> intelligence on foreign targets in foreign lands. What we're not  
> wanting to do here is to extend constitutional protections to  
> terrorists in foreign countries.
>
> So it's important that this law was modernized. It was modernized  
> in August. As we talked about then, that the law was significantly  
> outdated.  You could have sat in that chair in 1978 and not had the  
> ability to make a phone call from a cell phone; today you can.  
> Today, you can send an e-mail from anywhere in the world via a  
> Blackberry. The law was outdated, so it
> needed to be improved. It was improved. But Congress set a deadline  
> for it to expire so they could review it some more and that -- they  
> missed that deadline. We gave them a 15-day extension.
>
> The Senate used that time to pass a bipartisan bill that received  
> over two-thirds support from the United States Senate, has a  
> majority of support in the United States House. But the House  
> leadership, which seems to be beholden to class-action trial  
> attorneys in this matter, refused to let it come up for a vote. So  
> they are more interested in protecting the
> interests of one of their constituencies than in protecting the  
> interests of Americans.
>
> Q: That's a terrible indictment for you to say. They want to obey  
> the law.
>
> MR. STANZEL: And we are obeying the law and it is important that  
> this law be improved and modernized.
>
> Jeremy.
>
> Q: All Americans should be wire-tapped?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Helen, your facts are not correct here. If a foreign  
> terrorist is calling to the United States, we want to know what  
> they're saying.
>
> Q: How do you know they're a foreign terrorist?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Because they're in foreign lands and we have to be  
> able to track foreign terrorists in foreign lands and what they're  
> doing.
>
> Q: Any foreigner --
>
> MR. STANZEL: You may want to extend constitutional protections to  
> terrorists, but that is not something that we want to do.
>
> Q: You can't automatically call every foreigner a terrorist.
>
> MR. STANZEL: Jeremy?
>
> Q: Scott, two questions. One on this issue. The comment that you  
> just made about the House being "beholden" to class-action trial  
> attorneys -- Democrats have accused the White House of politicizing  
> this. With a comment like that, how do you respond that those kinds  
> of charges that this is just a political theater game?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, the Director of National Intelligence has  
> indicated on numerous occasions that, without retroactive immunity,  
> the private sector -- actually, this is from the committee report  
> from the Senate Intelligence Committee, I would refer you to that,  
> bipartisan, came out of the committee, 13 to two -- "Without  
> retroactive immunity, the private
> sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government  
> requests in the future without unnecessary court involvement and  
> protracted litigation. The possible reduction in intelligence that  
> might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety  
> of our nation."
>
> That is what a broad bipartisan majority in the Senate Intelligence  
> Committee said about retroactive liability. That's important. The  
> President, as you remember in the debate in August said we need to  
> give the intelligence community the tools they need to protect this  
> country, and if they don't have those, then I will find it  
> unacceptable.
>
> In November, we told the House that their proposal and their  
> approach was unacceptable. So -- and that's a statement of  
> administration policy. We need these tools, we need that  
> retroactive liability.
>
> So why is it that House Democrat leadership is blocking the vote,  
> simple up or down vote on a bipartisan proposal that received  
> nearly 70 percent support in the United States Senate and would  
> receive bipartisan majority support in the House -- why is it that  
> they are blocking that?
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Q: I was kind of wondering where you go from here, back on the  
> Protect America Act. I mean, is there any room for negotiation at  
> all? I mean, if immunity is the issue, are there other things you  
> could do, like cap liability? Or is it just you have these two  
> intractable positions and how do you accomplish --
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, I think -- I think that, obviously it's our view  
> that the House should take up the bipartisan Senate-passed bill.  
> That would pass the House. That much is clear. So a majority in the  
> House of Representatives wants the Senate-passed bill to come up  
> for a vote and pass. So that's where we are. If that were to  
> happen, we could go about the
> business of protecting Americans and put this issue behind us.  
> Unfortunately, the House Democrat leadership has not taken that  
> approach.
>
> So I haven't seen other ideas out there. It seems that the House is  
> committed to going on their 12-day recess over Presidents Day and  
> that is unfortunate. So certainly, if there are other ideas out  
> there, those are ones that we would take a look at. However, it  
> seems simple enough, the solution is well within grasp.
>
> Q: Just real quick. Why not have another -- I know you guys are  
> sick of these, but another 15-day -- I mean, if the threat is so  
> grave, isn't that better --

> MR. STANEL: Simply passing -- Congress -- you must remember that  
> Congress set its own deadline. They set a six-month deadline to  
> review these issues.  We felt that that was plenty long enough, and  
> the fact that it was going to expire is not something that we  
> supported in the first place. The terrorist threat is not going to  
> expire.
>
> So they asked for a 15-day extension to again review these things.  
> But I think as you heard, I think it was Mr. Boehner talk about, it  
> calls into question their desire to really address these issues in  
> a full way if we are doing extension after extension after  
> extension, and that is no way for the intelligence community to go  
> about its planning. And it causes
> greater concern, I think, to our ability to work with the private  
> sector to make sure that we're able to track what terrorists are  
> planning overseas.
>
> Q: But why isn't a temporary extension still better than nothing? I  
> mean, I understand why you want to get the retroactive immunity and  
> why you think that's important. But if the leadership isn't  
> offering that, why wouldn't another temporary extension be better  
> than nothing?
>
> MR. STANZEL: I would put it another way: What is it that they need  
> more time for? The solution is there. The solution is before them.  
> But they are blocking the solution. Why are they blocking the  
> solution? For partisan reasons. They are blocking that because they  
> are beholden to class-action trial attorneys.
>
> Q: But given that they seem to be intractable right now, wouldn't  
> you still prefer to let the law keep going for a while, than to  
> have it expire?
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, an extension was rejected by a majority in the  
> House of Representatives.
>
> Q: Right, and I'm asking why, given that they're allowing that to  
> happen, it seems to me to call into question some of these  
> statements that now there are going to be gaps -- dangerous gaps in  
> intelligence-gathering.

> MR. STANZEL: There will be.
>
> Q: Well, I'm saying, if you believe that, wouldn't you rather have --
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, it's up to House leaders to figure out how we  
> should protect our country. The solution is there before them. So  
> the majority in the House supports the solution before them. So all  
> it has to have is an up or down vote; simple as that.
>
> Q: What do you say to Nancy Pelosi, though, who -- she accused the  
> President yesterday -- I know you heard this -- of fear-mongering.  
> She said, obviously you can still pursue the targets that are  
> covered by the current law; right now you can still pursue any  
> investigation that has already been initiated. And then new ones,  
> all you'd have to do is get a
> warrant.
>
> MR. STANZEL: Right, but the warrant process is the exact process  
> that was problematic. In 1978, the law wasn't designed to have  
> warrants on foreign targets -- plain and simple. And how fast the  
> FISA Court acts is not the issue; it's how long it takes to put  
> together a very lengthy application leading up to the FISA Court  
> acting. So that's problematic. And so how
> would we respond? We are very concerned about the safety of  
> Americans. We all should be concerned about the safety of  
> Americans. That is why the Senate took the action that it did, in a  
> broad bipartisan way, to pass the Protect America Act. The House  
> should do the same.
>
> Q: You can get a warrant after the fact.
>
> Q: How much serious consideration did the President give to  
> delaying his trip to Africa? I mean, he mentioned that yesterday  
> and then he decided to go ahead and go anyway. Was it an idle threat?
>
> MR. STANZEL: No, that was an offer. I wouldn't call it a threat at  
> all. It was an offer to stay here -- if the House wanted to stay  
> here and work on these issues, and if he could be of assistance to  
> them to get this work done, he was willing to delay his trip.
>
> Q: But he knew at that time that the House had already decided to  
> adjourn.
>
> MR. STANZEL: Well, I don't know that their decision was made final.  
> But certainly, he wouldn't have said it if he wasn't prepared to  
> delay his trip.
>
> Q: And why is he going -- is it simply --
>
> MR. STANZEL: Because the House has made it clear that they don't  
> intend to act.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Q: I'm just still not clear on the question about the -- why the  
> administration decided that, hey, we're not going to do an extension.
>
> MR. STANZEL: I would take -- the question is premises on the fact  
> that an extension was available. An extension is not. A majority in  
> the House of Representatives rejected that approach.
>
> Q: But that's based on --
>
> Q: -- said he would veto --
>
> MR. STANZEL: They've known since November -- they've known since  
> November that our approach has been very clear, that --
>
> Q: But if the President is serious about protecting the United  
> States, which is the point that he has made in now three statements  
> in three days about this, that if this is so vital and that the  
> process is so cumbersome to get the kind of warrants you need  
> through the previous process, before PAA, then why not tell the  
> Republicans on the Hill, his party, that,
> okay, you know what, we need an extension, to continue doing it the  
> way that he wants --

> MR. STANZEL: Well, those may be questions that are best addressed  
> to the intelligence community. But certainly the tools that we have  
> will be weakened. As Kathleen mentioned, some of the efforts that  
> are currently underway have an opportunity to continue; new efforts  
> would have to go through the old process. So -- but further, what  
> concerns us the most is
> the ability to compel the assistance of private companies to  
> continue to assist with this effort. If we don't have the help of  
> these private companies, we don't have a program, plain and simple.
>
> So that -- with each step and each time this issue seems to falter  
> in Congress, the companies become increasingly reluctant, out of a  
> responsibility as I think the leaders mentioned, to their  
> shareholders, to figure out if they want to be subject to these  
> billion-dollar class-action lawsuits. And that is not something  
> that is good for the companies, it's not something that's good for  
> the security of the American people.
>
> All right, thank you.  [END}