In his latest follow-up to Mukasey’s comments, Gleen(s) state the following:
This morning I interviewed Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies and one of the nation’s foremost surveillance experts. She pointed out that even prior to 9/11, the NSA commonly intercepted international communications into the U.S. and — in numerous, broadly defined circumstances — was authorized to disseminate what they learned to the FBI and other domestic agencies. If they failed to intercept calls involving Al Qaeda and/or failed to disseminate information to the FBI about looming terrorist attacks, it wasn’t because FISA or any other laws prohibited them from doing so.
I admire the moxie. I suggest that in order to move their investigation along, one of them might want to contact another member of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission: Jamie Gorelick.
These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.
UPDATE: revisiting Karl’s post, particularly the following:
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.â€Â
um, so, could someone explain to me why telcos are being sued?
You know, Dan, they won’t get your point and even if they do, they’ll just patiently explain one more time how the little people like you are not privy to the nuances and details in these complicated issues.
You know, how you’re really too stupid to get it, so why don’t you just shut the eff up.
Teh Gleen(s) — and the NYT — have fundamentally misunderstood from the outset that the “wall” thickened by Gorelick was the real issue being debated in the early days of the TSP.
Sure. They have deep pockets, and if you can spin their behavior to make it appear bad, why not do it and make a buck or two.
So, Teh Gleen(s) is caught in another lie?
If the gleeeeeeens are typing, they are lying.
I would say that Gleen(s) has become a liability…anytime he opines complete with 3,000 updates people just tune his latest disingenuous diatribes out.
Also, Townhouse 2.0
http://monkeyfister.blogspot.com/2008/01/dear-glenn-greenwald-and-jane-hamsher.html
Wrong answer there, gumdrop. This statement:
NSA commonly intercepted international communications into the U.S. and  in numerous, broadly defined circumstances  was authorized to disseminate what they learned to the FBI and other domestic agencies.
is simply false. Any trace of identifiable U.S. Person information in such intercepts would result in the intercept being destroyed unless there was valid legal basis for retaining it, such as a FISA warrant or statutorily-recognized authority, per DOD 5240.1-R, rules which do not do anything “broadly” in any meaningful sense of the term. The two longstanding presumptions of that rule are (1) an intercept with domestic nexus is presumed to be US Person information, and (2) US Person information cannot be disseminated without legal basis for dissemination. Another presumption is that oversees information is presumptively non-U.S. person, a presumption that one or two judges sitting on the FISA court have apparently disagreed with. Brief retention of any intercept for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not it contains US Person info is contemplated, and if the presumption that an intercept contains US Person info cannot be overcome, it is expunged; likewise if it is determined to contain US Person info it is expunged. I think you can probably find a copy of older versions of the rule, Mike McConnell has indicated that this set of rules and presumptions has been overridden (we’re talking voice intercepts here, not various other kinds of activities not directed at the content of communications) roughly 130 times in 4 years.
“Broadly defined”? Jesus. For a guy who calls literally *everybody* he disagrees with a liar, the SOB sure takes enormous liberties in his own characterization of things.
Which is exactly why, Al, it’s so delicious watching Asshat McPuppet drag Olbermann and the rest of the Moronosphere along with him.
I’m savoring the irony of teh Gleen(s)’s (and other Lefties) quoting from the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11:
Teh Gleens claims:
Teh Gleen(s), who has spent years now screeching about the mortal threat to the Republic posed by the NSA targeting US persons, now calls it poor intelligence practice. No doubt he would respond that it’s all just fine and dandy to do this if you get a FIS warrant, etc. But this takes you back to the fundamental issue he seeks to avoid, which is whether you view the activity as intell collection of the sort which has never required a warrant, or whether you want to continue to squeeze the entire war effort into the law-enforcement box as we did before 9/11.
Teh Gleen(s) cannot bring himself to ask why the NSA policy was so risk-averse prior to 9/11, because he would have to look in the mirror.
Okay… I guess I missed something. What exactly did Greenwald lie about? What did that 1995 memo prove about what Mukasey said concerning this call from the Afghan safe house into the U.S.?
Okay… I guess I missed something. What exactly did Greenwald lie about?
the gleeeeens were typing, ergo, they are lying. Even when he has a point, he insists on lying.
For but one example, see Al’s comment above. Or Karl’s. Or try reading any of the 9,482,506 posts showing where all of the gleens are lying asshats.
It really would save time and bandwidth to list the things he hasn’t lied about. Here you go:
Hope that helps.
GLEENS III: A NEW SOCK!
McGehee – That was brilliant.
Gleeeeeeeeens IV – Socky McSockpuppety’s House of Horrors
JD, did I steal that one from you too? ;-)
– I’ve posted this before on several occasions, mainly so regular pw readers could work from a base of facts on the ground, assuming some may not be aware.
– The NSA, since its inception for the purpose, was, is, and always has been charged with the intercept (gathering), and recording (documentation) of all forms and instances of communications, domestic and foreign. The original policy makes no distinction concerning said intercepts, altough it should be said that the lone exception would be any form of actionable intelligence gathering that involves physical egress onto the rightful property of the target. this is the sole case you see being mis-applied on a continuous basis by lay people who have only the vagest idea about the process and policies.
– The above activities, constituting a fundamental right of any sovereignty to protect itself from espionage needs no court approval, but falls under the direct purvue of limited Congressional oversight on a need to know basis, and Presidential enforcement as a basic requirement of the office, namely “the highest priority duty to protect the people of the commonwealth of America”.
– For this reason, and in view of the plain facts of the real world situation, what might be argued is the access question, but none others. The opposition is motivated to obstruct in any manner they can, so they need to conflate and mis-represent, using scare tactics and other techniques, mainly a partisan press, to spread as much confusion and chaos as possible, with the express motive to leave the maximum number of people anxious and with the impression of a fumbling, and possibly criminally incompetent, administration.
– They do this under the cover of their “patriotic duty”, a faux excuse freeing them to pursue their goals, so partisan in their self indulgent righteousness, they neither care, nor consider, the long term effects on the safety of all of us, including themselves.
– The one and on;y instance I can think of that was of questionable lawfulness that is public knowledge where they have a possible case, is the instance of breaking and entry in an event that occurred during the Clinton administration.
– Excuse me. My irony meter is ringing off the hook.
So, according to Gleen(s), the 9/11 Commision was lieing about the Gorelick Wall forbidding sharing intel intercept info with LEAs?
I love how, for lefties, history begins anew every day!
lately the comment spam has been fun cause it makes me read old posts at random… just chuckled again at this bit here: