The National Security Agency on Wednesday released two internal documents related to the surveillance program disclosed by the New York Times on Dec. 16 and confirmed by President Bush the next day.

The documents, obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center under Freedom of Information Act request, are internal messages (PDF) from NSA director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander to all NSA employees outlining the program and its legal justification and urging employees not to talk to the press about the program.

“We do not comment on intelligence operations, actual or alleged,” he wrote in the first letter on Dec. 16, the same day the Times ran its first story on the operation. “Rest assured that any operation, regardless of sensitivity, is conducted within the law and in the best interest of our nation.”

On Tuesday, declassified documents released by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House democratic leader, show that NSA expanded its surveillance immediately after September 11, without waiting for a formal order from President George W. Bush.

Sources told both the Washington Post and the New York Times that the NSA director at the time, Gen. Michael Hayden, was referring to authority granted under Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Hayden is now deputy director for national intelligence.

“Should any member of the media approach you, please refer them to NSA Corporate Communications,” one of the two NSA letters concluded.

“The existence of a program and its legal basis were confirmed, but the operational details of the program and its execution remain highly classified and must be protected,” said the second letter, which was sent to all NSA employees on Dec. 22.

“Media coverage surmises that Administration and Agency officials may have acted unlawfully — notions I reject, categorically!” continued Alexander.

But the program even has former NSA directors questioning its legal basis. Adm. Bobby Inman (Ret.) told the Times that he couldn’t understand why the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or Patriot Act couldn’t be modified to provide oversight for such a program.

“What I don’t understand is why when you’re proposing the Patriot Act, you don’t set up an oversight mechanism for this?” Admiral Inman told the Times. “I would have preferred an approach to try to gain legislation to try to operate with new technology and with an audit of how this technology was used.”

And Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said that Bush violated the National Security Act of 1947 by failing to properly brief Congress on the program. However, she also said in a Dec. 21 statement that the program is “essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.”

“Overall, we are not concerned; our operations are carefully deliberated and measured; they are within the law; and they are nobly executed with strict oversight,” the second letter concludes. “We must not allow public discourse to distract us from our work: to protect and safeguard our nation.”

Vice-President Dick Cheney defended the program at a Heritage Foundation speech Wednesday, saying it intercepts “a certain category of terrorist-linked international communications.”

“There are no communications more important to the safety of the United States than those related to al Qaeda that have one end in the United States. If we’d been able to do this before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two hijackers who subsequently flew a jet into the Pentagon. They were in the United States, communicating with al Qaeda associates overseas. But we did not know they were here plotting until it was too late.”

Of course, this is complete bullshit, as the Washington Post points out:

But Cheney did not mention that the government had compiled significant information on the two suspects before the attacks and that bureaucratic problems — not a lack of information — were primary reasons for the security breakdown, according to congressional investigators and the Sept. 11 commission. Moreover, the administration had the power to eavesdrop on their calls and e-mails, as long as it sought permission from a secret court that oversees clandestine surveillance in the United States.

The bigger problem was that the FBI and other agencies did not know where the two suspects — Cheney’s office confirmed that he was referring to Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar — were living in the United States and had missed numerous opportunities to track them down in the 20 months before the attacks, according to the Sept. 11 commission and other sources. — Washington Post

You should read the words of the Vice President yourself, though.

Number one, these actions taken are necessary. Number two, these actions are totally appropriate and within the President’s authority under the Constitution and laws of the country. Number three, this wartime measure is limited in scope to surveillance associated with terrorists; it is carefully conducted; and the information obtained is used strictly for national security purposes. And number four, the civil liberties of the American people are unimpeded by these actions.

Let me dwell on that last point for a minute. I was in Washington in the 1970s, at a time when there was great and legitimate concern about civil liberties and about potential abuses within the executive branch. I had the honor of serving as White House Chief of Staff to President Ford, and that experience shapes my own outlook to this very day.

Serving immediately after a period of turmoil, all of us in the Ford administration worked hard to restore people’s confidence in the government. We were adamant about following the law and protecting civil liberties of all Americans, and we did so. Three decades later, I work for a President who shares those same values. He has made clear from the outset, both publicly and privately, that our duty to uphold the law of the land admits no exceptions in wartime. The President himself put it best: He said, “We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.” — Dick Cheney