DesMoines Register, May 13, 2006

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said in Iowa Friday that the Bush administration’s tracking of millions of private telephone calls as part of its war on terrorism warranted a full congressional investigation.

The former NATO commander and 2004 Democratic candidate for president said Congress needs to sort out the controversy as a way of maintaining its check on the presidential power.

“If you have a president, for reasons he believes are legitimate for national security, who is accused of misleading people about the extent of the program, and nobody knows what the extent of the program is, then I think a full congressional investigation is mandated,” Clark said.

The Bush administration is facing questions about its regard for civil liberties after the disclosure that the National Security Agency collected information on millions of Americans’ telephone calls.

At the heart of the matter is Gen. Michael Hayden, who was in charge of the surveillance program and is now Bush’s nominee to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

-snip

Americablog, May 11, 2006

US House Republicans suddenly pull cell-phone privacy bill, Rep. Markey thinks Bush spy agency types may have gotten it killed today

Well isn’t this interesting. Remember when I bought General Wesley Clark’s cell phone records for under a $100 in order to prove that anyone’s privacy could be violated?

Well, since that time there have been a number of bills in the House and Senate to address this problem. The House recently passed one bill unanimously, and a second bill was coming up in the House today. But it suddenly disappeared without a word right when the story broke about the Bush administration illegally spying on all of our phone records.

Coincidence? Not according to what Representative Markey may be hearing. He wrote to House Speaker Denny Hastert today asking what happened to the bill:

“With no notice or explanation, H.R. 4943 summarily disappeared from the House floor schedule that day and it has not been seen or heard from since. I am concerned about reports that some intelligence agency or interest had a hand in the bill’s disappearance. . . Is it currently in some legislative ‘Guantanamo Bay’?”

Legislation that no one disagreed with – legislation to protect your cell phone records – suddenly disappears from the House floor on the very day that we find out George Bush is spying on – what? – our phone records!

-snip

Securing America, January 23, 2006

Wes Clark stands with Schumer to endorse bipartisan bill to stop sale of cell phone call logs to protect privacy of millions of cell phone users.

Last Week Chairman Arlen Specter and Sen. Bill Nelson Joined Schumer to Introduce Legislation to Criminalize Practice that Was Successfully Used Against Gen. Wes Clark and Millions of Others.

Thieves Steal and Sell Entire List of Every Call Cell Phone Owner has Made, Private, Business and Personal Relationships Made Public for a Small Fee.

Who your Physician is, Whether you see a Psychologist, Companies you do Business with, Private/Personal Relationships Can all be made Public.

Last week U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer introduced legislation to combat the growing black market of cell phone call logs stolen and sold by criminals. The bipartisan Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006, was introduced with Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and others and it will criminalize the practice of both stealing and selling these records for cell phone, landline and voice over Internet protocol (VOIP) subscribers. Tomorrow, Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 1:15pm Schumer will stand with Gen. Wesley Clark to urge the passage of this critical bill. Gen. Clark’s personal cell records were purchased online recently. A representative from Verizon Wireless will also participate in the press conference – Verizon and Cingular have both endorsed the Schumer-Specter-Nelson bill.

DATE: TUESDAY, January 24, 2006
TIME: 1:15 p.m.
PLACE: 538 Dirksen Senate Office Building
WHO: Senator Schumer, Gen. Wesley Clark, and a representative from Verizon Wireless
Location: 538 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Domestic wiretapping

December 22, 2005

Fox News, December 22, 2005

Brigitte Quinn: The President will say that he absolutely has the constitutional authority to protect Americans from terror with this program. What do you say?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think the real issue here is: why did he need to do this? Nobody can quite understand, technically, why this was necessary, because under his existing authorities, he can authorize wiretaps and then- of anything abroad- and under the Federal, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act courts- FISA courts- you can get approval to wiretap domestically and where it’s connected with foreign intelligence. And it’s even retroactive.

Brigitte Quinn: Right.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So if you pick up something, you can run in there. So, and this is a court that’s never turned down the- turned down three times out of thousands. So, why was it necessary then to disregard that court, and what does it mean?

Brigitte Quinn: Right.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Nobody really understands it. It’s more a question of fact first, because I think the American people want their security protected.

Brigitte Quinn: Mm hm.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And they also want a Constitutional government-

Brigitte Quinn: Right.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: With checks and balances. And-

Brigitte Quinn: But General, about FISA, I guess the argument, you know, for going around that is that in these cases of terror, when you’re trying to connect the dots, and you’re trying to prevent a possible terrorist attack, time is of the essence, essence. The FISA laws were made in response to the Cold War threat, a very different kind of threat.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the specific question is: what is it that you can’t do under FISA? For example, if you got information and you discovered you had to wiretap and you wiretapped, then for up to 72 hours you just go to a judge and say, “Hey, I just had to do this. Please approve it.” And the judge’ll approve it. Why is that not adequate? That’s what nobody seems to understand and the administration hasn’t explained. It’s a question of facts and technology.

-snip