At FireDogLake, we learn that Christy Hardin Smith has read an article from CQ reporting that US intelligence allegedly tapped the telephone calls of author Lawrence Wright in 2002, and now fears that her phones may still be tapped because her family hosted a teenage German foreign exchange student a few years ago.
The CQ article in turn refers to an article in the Jan. 21 edition of The New Yorker, which is not online — and which I have not read. Accordingly, I will stand corrected if there are proven facts reported in that article that contradict what follows here. But I think it unlikely, as I doubt the FBI agents who quizzed Wright about his telephone calls to a source in Egypt were inclined to debrief their subject on intelligence sources and methods.
Christy Hardin Smith and her fellow travelers may be gripped with FISA-noia, but they are highly selective about it. Neither the FDL post nor the CQ article entertain the possibility that Wright’s calls were intercepted via Echelon, a system first developed in the 1970s, which was picking up telephone calls involving people including British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and US Sen. Strom Thurmond in the 1980s. This past summer, moviegoers got a fictionalized look at how Echelon works in The Bourne Ultimatum.
Prior to 9/11, liberal organs like the New York Times defended programs like Echelon as a “necessity” to apprehend “foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists” and accepted assurances from the NSA that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.
After 9/11, the terrorist threat is even more obvious, but left-liberals apparently see the Republican president as an even bigger threat.
Erasers, blindfolds and earplugs are needed to be a liberal today. It’s the only way for them to ignore inconveniences, like history, in order to maintain their irrational hates du jour.
“Neither the FDL post nor the CQ article entertain the possibility that Wright’s calls were intercepted via Echelon,”
Uh……..that is the issue. We don’t know. We should find out.
Best cover for crooks and liars is information control. Why don’t
y’all want to uncover the facts?
And please; no super-righteous soliloquies about gettin’ the bad guys.
(code for; protectors of the status-quo AT ANY COST including civil rights)
Cleo, the point is that anyone with a -D affixed to their name is basically given carte blanche on these matters by the crowd that lives in huddled fear of BushitlerCo’s Black NSA helicopters.
I, for one, recall the massive anti-WAR rallies when Clinton decided to bomb Serbia and launch cruise missiles in Operation Desert Fox.
cleo,
The point is that your fellow travelers had no problem with any of this when Clinton was president… and that CHS has a greatly inflated sense of self-importance.
Moreover, I have no individual need to uncover intelligence sources and methods — this is why we have Congressional oversight (at the moment controlled by the party opposing the president). Alternatively, Wright could bring a lawsuit, as he would not have the standing problem that got Hitchens, et al booted out of the 6th Circuit. As for civil rights, I would merely note that the reason FISA is an issue is precisely because the activities at issue do not violate anyone’s Constitutional rights. Nor has anyone claimed that FISA is an excerise of Congressional power under sec. 5 of the 14th amendment. International communications — whether by phone or mail — have traditionally been subject to inspection. The current kerfuffle is a product of BDS.
, “the point is that anyone with a -D affixed to their name is basically given carte blanche on these matters by the crowd that lives in huddled fear of BushitlerCo’s Black NSA helicopters.”
Techie;
You may have missed by comments on the Dems and their pathetic capitulations, especially on Telcom immunity. Pissed at Obama and Clinton for being AWOL during this debate.
“The point is that your fellow travelers had no problem with any of this when Clinton was president”
If it was an issue then, it was under my radar. Regardless, there are trust issues that have evolved which open far too many cans of pork and beans. Didn’t RWR say ‘Trust, but verify’?
So, Kkkleo, you just didn’t care under Clinton, because you like him, and knew he wouldn’t lie to you?
If it was an issue then, it was under my radar
Convenient. Just like the Dems “shock” at how the Clintons operate against their opponents.
They worry about the black helicopter, and using the IRS and FBI to go after political opposition, because that is what they do when they are in power, and they assume everyone else will do the same thing.
It’s the best cover for anyone who doesn’t want the entire world to know what they’re doing. Mebbe we should get some reporters into the situation room at Central Command…you know, to uncover the facts!
But tell me, how about Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson-Plame? Seems your side went apoplectic at that fact set being known. Why the double standard?
In the next Democrat Administration, how much will conveniently go back “under the radar”?
“Why the double standard?”
Right back atcha’
“In the next Democrat Administration, how much will conveniently go back “under the radarâ€Â?”
It will be based upon my trust issues. “Fool me once………..”
I’m rubber, you’re glue and all of that.
Fool me always. Smart me not. Rational me not too.
So, Kkkleo admits that their outrage is selective, and to a large degree, determined by who occupies the White House. Thank you, Miss Cleo, for that brief lapse where you let the truth slip out. It was what we knew all along, you just confirmed it. Now, I know that took a lot out of you, and you probably need to take care of your PreTSD, so run along for a little while. You deserve some ME time.
How did you wade through manbearpig to find this article? Props to you. I would not have the stomach for that.
*snort*
And how will you decide your level of trust? Probably by the content of what you hear in the press, and by the level of outrage your selected gurus express. So Clinton’s abuse of power was “under the radar” because no one made enough of a stink about it — at least no one you cared about.
At least you’re honest enough to admit there’s no principle behind your outrage.
Oooh big surprise, another liberal assuming the worst about something that has already been in place for decades, forming an opinion about something she admits she hasn’t bother to read & has produced nothing more than another, over-the-top, emotionally charged rant of paranoia. At least she had the decency to admit she hadn’t read the article & knows nothing about which she speaks… something which mystically qualifies as making a point on the left. No wonder Gleen(s) is so popular & well respected.
Explain to me again, semicleo, why we should take your side seriously much less, bother to listen at all?
Selective indeed! Karl creates an alternative reality where something that happened and was wrong, may be the fault of the ultimate Karl boogeyman…BILL CLINTON!!!! Instead, the issue with Echelon or the FISA changes or telecom immunity is illegally collecting and using data.
Karl seems to be arguing that Christy Hardin Smith is selectively outraged, when he is not, apparently, outraged at all. That is the tragedy. Partisanship, when exercised by Ms. Smith or Mr. Karl, is just blinkered and stupid.
Thanks for your time.
Actually, I’d heard about Echelon back in the 90s, and people that wanted to bring it up were described as Ruby Ridge-type nutters.
Narrative, indeed.
Doyle – All that writing and you missed the point, completely. Bravo!
“Karl creates an alternative reality where something that happened and was wrong, may be the fault of the ultimate Karl boogeyman…BILL CLINTON!!!!”
Bill Clinton created Echelon before he was even Governor of Arkansas? Wow, that is beyond Rovian!
Illegally collecting and using data is wrong. If they’re doing that they should cut it out. Karl’s point is that liberals just change their definition of wrong as it suits them. Myself I think our transnational progressivists are having a lot of conversations they don’t want people knowing about. This is because they hate America.
Karl mentioned Clinton? I must have missed that in his discussion of the 70’s and 80’s.
Christy hardin Smith is not merely selectively outraged, she’s batshit crazy. But then, we knew that.
I thought Ezra Kramer was the ultimatum boogey-man.
John Doyle,
The only “boogeyman” is CQ & Christy’s unsubstantiated claim that is was FISA… you know, Karls’ point.
At least Kristy had the decency to admit she never bothered to read the original article, whereas you never bothered to read the post & inserted your own assumptions.
“Selective indeed!†– John D. Doyle
Excellent. Point. Made!
After 9/11, the terrorist threat is even more obvious, but left-liberals [ala Cleo] apparently see the Republican president as an even bigger threat.
Assiduous Denial of fact, Displacement of threat, Projection of dysfunctional personality traits, then Paranoia welling up from the fearsome specter of these very deflections and projections: Voila, the most basic Enemy is your own mind, Cleo. [h/t Dr.Sanity]
“Getting the [forever unseen] facts” is only a too-convenient cover for your own denial of seen facts, Cleo, and thus an assertion that you are not searching for facts to begin with, but instead simply seek the Monkey-Brain gratification derived from repeating various chants – born of the Holy Conspiracy Theory – such as “Bush lied”, “FISA-Patriot Act’s threat to Civil Liberties”, etc.; along with untethered, narcissistic, self-congratulatory and annointing mantras such as:
“Consequently, those with conscience, seeing the plight of the little guy made them socially aware that such needed advocacy.”
Your “amusing” problem, Cleo, enc., is “self-inflicted”. And there is no other cure – prior to the arrival of the next Comet, that is.
IIRC, aclu asked for congressional investigation into echelon. Congress back then was looking quite closely at the white house, but not this. People following current fisa issues may note that the echelon interception takes place outside the US. That and the fact that other countries are doing the interception may make a key legal and constitutional difference. Maybe it did for clinton-era Congressional leaders. Didn’t seem like it for the ACLU.
McConnell said the eavesdropping must have been triggered by getting a call “from some telephone number that’s associated with some known outfit.â€Â
The journalist, however, had originated the call.
What happened next bears repeating, not just because it has gone largely unreported, but because it’s the kind of encounter many more Americans can expect if they end up as a target of our distressingly sloppy  some would say incompetent  counterterrorism agencies, if Congress extends a law (PL 110-55) enacted last August, that expanded the government’s electronic surveillance authority…
“They wanted to know about phone calls made to a solicitor in England†who was upset that I was talking to some of her clients, who were jihadis, former members of Zawahiri’s terror organization in Egypt, and they wanted to know what we were talking about.â€Â
I must misunderstand the law. If the known jihadis were being legally monitored, wouldn’t calls going to them be monitored as well?
If I call my Uncle Tony Soprano in New Jersey, and he’s being tapped by the FBI, wouldn’t they hear my phone call?
Since the FBI and NSA won’t confirm or deny the story, how can you tell whether Wright is flat out making shit up. Supposedly the wiretaps began in 2002 and the FBI agents visited his Texas home in 2002. Has he been scared to write about it until January 2008? Something smells fishy.
I must misunderstand the law. If the known jihadis were being legally monitored, wouldn’t calls going to them be monitored as well?
If I call my Uncle Tony Soprano in New Jersey, and he’s being tapped by the FBI, wouldn’t they hear my phone call?
MayBee – As is your want, you understand the law quite clearly. It is those that wish to obfuscate, and just make shit up that would make this out to be something other than exactly what it is.
Remember, it is not about the common defense, it is about spying on political opponents! Because LBJ did!
Well, if I’m not mistaken, the insightful Tarquin (or was it the equally penetrating dataless dave) made the statement that a domestic call to a known terrorist suspect in another country was still a domestic call!
BECAUSE OF THE DOMESTIC ORIGINALITY!!
I think it’s important to have serious discussion and questioning of any surveillance program that involves domestic calls but the goalposts keep getting moved and the the partisan rhetoric gets in the way. Here’s a fabulous way not to be on the Echelon or any other NSA radar screen: Don’t make overseas calls to potential jihadists. If you do, don’t complain after the fact that someone listened.
Well, after two jetliners slammed into the WTC, I’m glad there some folks other than the ACLU decided they were principled enough to elevate form over substance. Not that they have much clue about what is actually being done, mind you. But they want to know, even if it means exposing it to the enemy.
Karl – As Kkkleo practically admitted to above, this has little to do with the program and almost everything to do with the person occupying the White House. When Hill/Bill or Barry is there, we will hear nary a peep about this topic, unless Hill/Bill tries to go after some Bush admin people after the fact, all while maintaining the program so they do not get bit in the ass the next time.
Here’s a fabulous way not to be on the Echelon or any other NSA radar screen: Don’t make overseas calls to potential jihadists.
Come on, BJ. Who are they supposed to call when they are down in the dumps, and having a bad day?
The way it was explained to me ,BJ, was that as soon as the media left our shores it was fair game. Whether it was electronic or paper.
[…] beat for a while,” which is another way of saying “not heavy on the surveillance beat since the 1970s,” but sharing Kos’s aversion to the current […]