Slate has posted an excerpt from New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau’s upcoming book, descriping how the NYT came to publish the story disclosing the Terrorist Surveillance Program. There are only two truly new revelations in the excerpt. First, Lichtblau admits that people at the paper would likely have been more inclined to print the story had Vice-President Cheney showed up to defend it because he is so disliked by the paper. Second, despite NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller’s protests to the contrary, the decision by Lichtblau’s colleague James Risen to disclose the Terrorist Surveillance Program in his book was the trigger for the NYT story disclosing the existence of the program.
The Slate post also provides the springboard for a post by AJ Strata explaining that Lichtblau and Risen misunderstood what NSA procedures changed after 9/11, which in turn caused them to portray the Terrorist Surveillance Program as something that it was not. Strata’s piece should be illuminating to those who want a better understanding of how the NSA actually collects information.ÂÂ
However, I would note that because Strata’s expertise is in telecommunications, he does misapprehend a couple of legal points — one of which hurts his case, one of which helps it. First, Strata suggests that — based on the NYT’s own reporting — that “to eavesdrop on Americans (make them a Target and not a Contact) requires a warrant.” But that is not really what the NYT reported. Rather, the paper reported that the NSA still sought warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications. In theory, the paper left open the possibility that the NSA could target international communications by a US person in ways that would be questionable. I suspect Strata conflates the two because the current state of our technology probably makes that separation near-impossible — but the tension between the law drafted for 20th century technology and the technology that exists today is a recurring theme in the FISA debate that probably should not be glossed over.
Strata also is a bit careless in writing that — according to reporting from the Washington Post — an NSA lead cannot, by itself, form the basis of a FIS warrant. What the WaPo reported was that:
According to government officials familiar with the program, the presiding FISA judges insisted that information obtained through NSA surveillance not form the basis for obtaining a warrant and that, instead, independently gathered information provide the justification for FISA monitoring in such cases.
This is actually more protective of individual privacy than Strata’s characterization. According to the WaPo story, information obtained from a warrantless NSA intercept is not used at all in obtaining a FIS warrant, to eliminate any possibility that the warrant is based on the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
Nevertheless, Strata’s post is useful, not only in terms of explaining some of the technical process of NSA intell collection, but also because it highlights that the legal questions raised about the Terrorist Surveillance Program within the government appear to have been focused not on the sort of Orwellian concerns later raised by the nutroots, but on the so-called “wall” between foreign intelligence gathering and domestic law enforcement that was very much the subject of public criticism in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. That debate was largely settled by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in In re Sealed Case, which resolved the issue in favor of allowing intelligence-sharing.
First, Lichtblau admits that people at the paper would likely have been more inclined to print the story had Vice-President Cheney showed up to defend it because he is so disliked by the paper.
I know Lichtblau thinks he’s being cute by saying this, but it does nothing if not prove many suspicions that the NYT’s is a replica of bunch of catty, ignorant highschool girls.
Thanks, Karl. We can almost write out the expected responses, in advance.
I am very thankful for how President Bush has kept everybody safe, even when the New York Times makes it really a lot harder. And Mr. Cheney too. They were definitely the right guys at the right time.
NY Times Reporters Try To Defend Grave Mistake – Of Course Fail
Update at End
The big news for the NY Times over the past few years was their treasonous exposure of the fact that the USA no longer threw away leads about possible terrorists operating in America. In a single sentence that is what the FISA-NSA issue …
Happyfeet,
that was hysterical. The 3000 bodies turned to ash under Bush and Cheney’s watch are no doubt laughing too.
Wow IJS. Just wait. When they release “The Path to 9/11” on DVD, you’ll understand under who’s watch the tragedy really fell. Of course, it’s not something Bill and Hillary would lie about. Their recollection notwithstanding of course.
As I noted when speaking with Renee Montagne on “All Things Considered” the main issue is liability protection for the private sector.
“We can’t do this mission without their help,” I said. “Currently there is no retroactive liability protection for them. They’re being sued for billions of dollars.”
So, whereas you folks have an axe to grind with the NY Times, I’m more concerned about the House bill that made the requested changes to FISA, but didn’t contain immunity. Who the hell cares about technology if the behemoth that is AT&T can’t get away with breaking the law?
We must keep the telecoms safe and protect ourselves from discovery. Keep you eye on the ball, Karl
Well, for real. I don’t know about how funny it is, but you gotta figure that the September 11 dead people didn’t die just so for that Democrats could use their deaths to attack the president of the U.S. Back then when all that happened there were no operational ties between Democrats and Al Qaeda.
Yeah, publishing it in the paper isn’t enough, IJS. We need more details, lots of them, in open court. That’ll make us all much more secure.
As opposed to today…
If I never mentioned it before, IJS is one colossal ass. It is like the nishidiot with better grammar. A fuck faced mendoucheous douchenozzle worthy of nothing but scorn and derision.
Free yourselves from the yoke of tyranny that BushCo and the telecoms have saddled you with! Demand that national security be compromised in public for the benefit of the trial lawyers! YIPPEE ! Fuckers.
“We need more details, lots of them, in open court.”
The latest House version of the FISA bill included procedures for the details to be shared with the court in secret. It will be opposed by the usual suspects
Who the hell cares about technology if the behemoth that is AT&T can’t get away with breaking the law?
There is a difference between criminal and civil cases, which I suspect you know. Which makes me wonder if you understand which protection the telecoms would be afforded. Do you?
The latest House version of the FISA bill included procedures for the details to be shared with the court in secret. It will be opposed by the usual suspects
That will surely keep them private. Just like Ryan’s divorce decree that conveniently became public when running against Baracky?
I am still waiting to hear Darlas explanation how a congresscritter has the authority to negotiate with foreign countries / terrorists, and how that is in any way related to a 1st Amendment issue.
“Just like Ryan’s divorce decree that conveniently became public when running against Baracky?”
They’re not talkign about ‘sealing’ something at the courthouse. Thats not what they mean. Its more like how the FISA court works in secret.
“I am still waiting to hear Darlas explanation how a congresscritter has the authority to negotiate with foreign countries / terrorists, and how that is in any way related to a 1st Amendment issue.”
I told you people can talk to whomever. Authority to represent the US? that they dont have. But on your own? talk away. As a congressman? talk.
There is a difference between criminal and civil cases, which I suspect you know. Which makes me wonder if you understand which protection the telecoms would be afforded. Do you?
EG – They believe that Bush gives a flying fuck what they are saying amongst themselves. They think he is a criminal, and since they cannot seem to make any of their imaginary charges stick, civil court for imagined damages is their only conceivable outlet for redress.
As a Congressman. Not.
JD – They will always have giant paper-mache puppets. Which is not nothing.
The only sure way to keep a secret, darlas, is to tell it to no one…
and George W kicks congress’ ass on approval. Demolishes them. Crushes them.
doubles them.
Al: You mean like being the tallest building in Wichita?
Al: You mean like being the tallest building in Wichita?
More like, if you don’t even measure up to half of someone and you call that someone a disaster, what’s twice as shitty as a disaster? There’s just not enough ass-kicking in Washington.
“As a Congressman. Not.”
And yet they do. Amazing how nobody listens to you.
“The only sure way to keep a secret, darlas, is to tell it to no one…”
And yet we have a FISA court.
So, why aren’t they suing in the FISA court?
“So, why aren’t they suing in the FISA court?”
Because that’s not what it is for. The FISA court is for the government to go to and apply for secret FISA warrants.
I have seen reference to the idea of Congress transferring the cases to the FISA court. But I think the usual suspects will still oppose.
Which apparently couldn’t quite keep a secret.
Lichtblau is a way ugly name I think.
Also Karl is doing a lot of work.
“Which apparently couldn’t quite keep a secret.”
What got out from there?
Try to keep up …
Cows.
Oops, sorry, that was the barn door being open that resulted in that particular leak.
Anybody who likes the idea of a lawsuit driving up our phone bills while telling terrorists how to circumvent our surveillance is far more fucking crazy than nishi.
And, again, I’m left speechless that the people baying for blood over international phone calls were silent in the face of the FBI files of political opponents being rifled and the IRS performing audits of presidential critics.
That didn’t bother you then. Why does this — much, much less dangerous, and much, much more in line with Constitutional authority — make you foam at the mouth?
Well, as soon as we eviscerate Risen in court, we can get the skinny on his sources. We MUST get to the bottom of all this lawbreaking. Sound like a plan, darlas?
“And, again, I’m left speechless that the people baying for blood over international phone calls were silent in the face of the FBI files of political opponents being rifled and the IRS performing audits of presidential critics.”
Can you sue for that? If not we should be able to.
“We MUST get to the bottom of all this lawbreaking. Sound like a plan, darlas?”
Oh you think this story got out because of hte FISA court? Wasn’t the whole bit that the admin was avoiding the FISA court? Sure. Put this whole thing on trial.
I have to say that the whole “darlas” thing seems to be working for Actus quite well – doesn’t look like many folks have tumbled to him yet in that persona.
@#17
I’m sure Lynne Stewart could give them some pointers on how to keep the proceedings classified.
PT
JD, for the millionth time, the lawsuits are not from you feared “trial lawyers”, they are by non-profit organizations.
I know, I’ve mentioned it quite a few times and I know you read every post I make, so I’m forced to conclude you are either lying about it (possible), too silly to follow a link (not likely), or just plain too stupid to understand.
What we need is a mutual liberty society to insure our freedoms. Since private companies, like Liberty Mutual, will not insure our freedoms from executive branch encroachment, perhaps we can use the Courts to insure the govt won’t violate the law of the land.
I saw John Adams, nee Paul Giamatti, say our country should be a government of laws and not men and all I could imagine was the PW crowd booing and hissing and crying that King George’s word was good enough for them.
In summation, JD, learn to read
IJS, your delusions about us PW regulars believe can best be described as moderately amusing, but they’re not much on which to base a life philosophy.
What if cars ran on Bush-hate?
Miami would be underwater by now.
IJS – No matter how many words you type, you still – objectively – are placing the profits of the trial lawyers ahead of national security. And, Kyoto.
Fear the insurance company!!!!!!!!!!!!
cause those non-profits? not lawyers.
#42
JD, for the millionth time, the lawsuits are not from you feared “trial lawyersâ€Â, they are by non-profit organizations.
And just who represents these non-profits in court? Let me spell it out for you. It will be the same lawyers who “represented” the people in the suits against the tobacco companies.
Mutual Liberty Society? It’s called a constitution.
Rusty, I believe the the documents regarding the lawsuits can be found at eff.org. EFF is, as maintained by other commenters, a non-profit organization. Non-profits, and yhis might not be obvious, are not into lawsuits for profits.
JD from above is incorrect. The Trail Lawyers Association does not benefit from these non-profts (the other plaintiff is the ACLU). These people you fear so greatly have a website where they discuss their reasons for filing these suits. Instead of some nefarious profit-motive (which the Right would find admirable under other circumstances), they are attempting, according to them, to get to the bottom of the Government and the telecoms possibly breaking the law.
Not to get too involved, but Congress’s investigation was stymied by “Executive privilege” and suing the govt was tossed out when the 6th District ruled against standing in ACLU v NSA. The only way the ACLU and EFF can find out what was done in your and my name is to file lawsuits against the folks that broke 60 and 70 year old laws.
but they’re not in it for money, nope, non-profits don’t have any bills to pay.
wait, there’s lawyers involved and they expect to be paid?
All the non-profit lawyers I know receive a salary from the organization and not in any way rewarded financially by the success or failure of their lawsuits.
As for damages, any plaintiff in such a suit would ask for astronomical punitive damages, so as to frighten any other putative telecom lawbreakers. In addition, they would know that asking for damages doesn’t mean they will receive them (See the BMW case, BMW v Gore), bu8t it does ensure newspapers will report it and little conservative guys and gals will be scared of the meanies that filed the scary lawsuits!
well, yeah, I get a bit concerned about people doing their darndest to reveal how our national security works. there’s a reason these things aren’t made public. and I love how you’ve already decided the telecoms broke the law.
“Non-profits, and yhis might not be obvious, are not into lawsuits for profits.”
It’s not obvious for being not true.
If they don’t need the money, why are they claiming a total that exceeds half the GDP of the US for last year? The only other case on their site where money was awarded was for $12,500.
I can beleive, however, that it is not, strictly speaking, about the money. What it is about is trying to force intelligence means and methods into the public view.
What standing does EFF have to even bring this suit?
Have either of you two authoritarian clowns ever heard of the Church Committee? Have you ever read 1984? Is there any time (except when a Democrat is in the White House) when you question your government? Is there ANY time, RTO, that you accept O’Connor’s reasoning (a declaration of war is not a blank check)? Since the Executive is not required to follow the law when “at war”, why can’t the Bush administration just assassinate the EFF lawyers? Or, “Jose Padilla” them? Where exactly does Executive authority (under a Republican President) end?
You two, maybe oughta think about a new Constitution, because you are clearly freaked about Separation of Powers in the current one.
that’s a lovely set of (completely wrong) assumptions you’ve got there. I’m interested in your views and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
1984? for reals? I used to work with a guy that was always telling us that the U.S. was just like in that book. that was back in 1999 and I thought it was pretty silly then too.
So, your answer is a shrug?
You and your other half have alleged that secrecy is more important than law. RTO maintains Article 2 powers trump the Stored Communications Act and various other statutes (including FISA) and allow a Republican President to do anything he likes. Where does that power end? Barring a coherent answer, I think we have your answer, i.e. you haven’t thought this through (which is what I expected).
SUE THE HOLY HELL OUT OF EVERYONE EVER ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAWLESS RENEGADE TELECOMS BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE LISTENED TO IJS BREATHING HEAVY WHILE CALLING 1-800-GOAT-FUK !!!!!!!!!! BECAUSE OF THE BROKEN LAWS. AND PRIVACY.
BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSITE DIDN’T FIND ANYTHING DOESN’T MEAN THERE ISN’T MONEY TO BE MADE!!!
ahem, actually, it’s been discussed to death and just because I don’t jump when you want to reinvent the wheel every time it comes up, doesn’t mean I haven’t thought it through. You’ve already decided laws were broken, there’s a civil court case pending….. we don’t actually know what was done because there are still some security things that are secret. People in Congress with clearance were briefed and said nothing about it until election time rolled around. so yeah, I’m shrugging. deal.
But the rights!!! OH GREAT GOD IN HEAVEN, THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLESES!!!11!!!ELEVENTY11!!!!!
You know, I wrote Bush and told him those domestic gulags for political opponents outed by rampant illegal wiretapping was going to come back and bite him.
What?
RTO, you’re, pardon my French, a fucking clown. You can’t answer a question about the limits of Presidential power that propose to lecture me on.
Further, you lecture me on prejudging a case, which means either two things: first, you don’t know or understand what a legal argument is and don’t understand I am making a case for lawsuits to proceed through their natural course — OR — you do understand what a legal argument is, agree that laws may have been violated by the government, but think that’s fine (in which case you’re a tool).
I rejected the idea that you believe the telecoms and the government were not in violation of the law by your repeated sophistries.
You, as a citizen and as a minor functionary of a Republican political campaign, believe the Executive can do what it wants, because, well, I have no idea. Your defense of your position is, sadly, that of a simpleton. Your cult of personality leads to tyranny (far down the road to be sure, but you are getting us started by rejecting the claims of the Federalist Papers).
As for the other braying hacks who spilled their witticism onto the page, I am reminded of the chorus of crows, a bunch of caterwauling simplicity with no meaning. If such slings and arrow are supposed to stick, jd, and bj, than I would expect them to be in English and somewhat coherent. Now, both of you, please return to race-baiting, as Bob and I were talking.
who’s Bob?
maggie – That is IJS’ other personality. It is equally offensice, pedantic, predictable, and doctrinaire.
ah. yes. I imagine him stomping his feet and waving his fists as his voice gets higher and higher. like Ron Paul. *giggle*
No. I havent’t answered your question. There’s a difference, though the fact that you can’t grasp Consitutional supremacy over statute indicates that you won’t understand that either.
All of which means that I’m still wasting my time replying to you.
And, as I’ve explained to you AND cited Supreme Court precedent AND asked you to comment on the end of your view of the Constitution, you are wrong. The Court explicitly rejects your assertion. I’m sure non-coms in the US Army are allowed to violate the law whenever the wish, but Presidents are not.
I thus took your silly, elementary school understanding of the Supremacy clause to the Socratic woodshed. Let me repeat, sophistry boy, Article 2 of the US Constitution does no give the President the right to violate statute, as held by any and every Court. If it did, murder, RTO, IS statutory. By your logic, the Executive is untrammeled by statute during war time, so murder is fine, as is kidnapping, etc.
What you’ve done is set up a Dictator in the Roman version (you can look it up), a man (or woman) above the law for the period of an emergency. It’s not how we work and your refusal to see this is why you are a clown. There are interesting arguments to made in the context of Presidential power (the Court has rejected, though), but you are not making them. In fact, you are not trying.
By the way, Maggie, “Bob” is Robert White, your husband. Come on, Mags, even I read Human Events. Jed Babbin is a hero.
Nice spelling, JD. Almost made me laugh as hard as you accusing of someone else of being “doctrinaire”. After all, can Karl or Dan or Happyfeet even put pants on with you shoulder deep in their colons? For a “executive at a major insurance company” you have no ability to think on your own. You keep up the good work.
You really are a fucking buttdart, IJS.
Ever seen a squirrel carry an acorn or two and think he’s an oak tree?
You have now.
well, he’d have to make a DAMN good argument that the murder was in the interest of national security….
;p
p.s. his own mother doesn’t even call him “Bob” or any derivative thereof, so it’s awfully presumptive of you to do it. dumbass.
[…] revisiting Karl’s post, particularly the following: Strata also is a bit careless in writing that  according to […]
I think we’re seeing JadeGold adopt a new persona, here.