From Bloomberg:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today defended President George W. Bush against reports he authorized spying on American citizens and foreign nationals in the U.S. following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The New York Times reported that Bush in 2002 secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without the court-approved warrants that are required for domestic spying. The international phone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds, possibly thousands, of people have been monitored without warrants to find numbers linked to al-Qaeda, the paper said.
Rice, interviewed on NBC’s “Today’’ show, said “the president has been very clear that he would not order people to do things that are illegal.’’ She declined to comment directly on the New York Times report.
The presidential order Bush signed represents a change in responsibilities for the NSA, which traditionally monitors actions in foreign countries, the Times said.
The paper said it interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because the information was classified. The officials said the administration is confident that existing safeguards protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the Times said.
The Bush administration briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court, the secret court in Washington that handles national security issues, the paper said.
[…] Rice today said Bush has a responsibility to adhere to the rules of the Constitution when making intelligence decisions and has protected Americans’ civil liberties.
“The kind of attack that we experienced on Sept. 11, that means that the president has a heavy responsibility’’ to “protect and defend Americans,’’ Rice said. “But he did it always—anything that he did—legally and within his constitutional responsibility.’’
The Times said it held off publishing its report for a year because the administration said that could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. Some information that administration officials could be useful to terrorists was omitted, the paper said.
Well. How thoughtful of the Times to hold off until the day after the momentous elections in Iraq before unleashing a breathless report about, well, not much.
Note that current and former administration officials, granted anonymity, do not dispute the administration’s claim “that existing safeguards protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans.” Note, too, that Congressional leaders were briefed and the judge in charge of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court notified.
So then. Why run the report?
Well, that’s simple enough. Keep an eye on the headlines today. See how often you hear that Bush “has allowed spying on US citizens” [update: another distraction caught and catalogued]– which, while technically true, is unnecessarily inflammatory and meant to suggest an erosion of liberties that is so targeted as to be hardly worrisome. Because in point of fact, those who are being monitored are people with either direct or indirect ties to al Qaeda. And again—there are certain things we must do 1) to keep ourselves safe, and 2) to keep our way of life. If what the government is doing takes care not to wander outside the bounds of Constitutional protections, what, exactly, is the problem?
This story was published today to sink key provisions of the PATRIOT Act and to distract from the success of yesterday’s elections. And what a shame.
So far, through the PATRIOT Act and the relaxing of NSA monitoring, we have thwarted terror attacks domestically and abroad, and we’ve done so with a small ostensible footprint from the government (airport security, which is largely for show, anyway, a notable exception).
But the press these days rarely shies away from any inference that will throw suspicion on this administration—particularly if it fits their years-longs narrative that the Bushies are “shredding the Constitution” and trying to turn the US into a theocratic police state.
Kudos to Bloomberg for the restraint they showed in their headline. Sadly, other media outlets have ignored the nut of the story in favor of a sensational tease.
Confederate Yankee has more. And here’s Mark Levin.
****
On FOXNews just now, Shep Smith and Judge Andrew Napolitano concluded that, if the Times story is true (and Shep is straining for it to be so), we’re seeing Watergate all over again.
Impeachable offenses. Major violations of law. “Serious business.”
Of course, Smith also pushed the story as, “can the government come and spy on you?”—which misses the point entirely.
For now, I’m sticking with Mark Levin’s reading of applicable law, and with the White House denial that it broke any laws or violated the Constitutional rights of any citizens. Unless Jay Rockefeller, who was briefed, is going to claim that he was duped on this just as he was duped on WMD intelligence…
****
update 2: Michelle Malkin has a great roundup of reaction.
Personally, I could give to shits if the gov’t is reading my email. Matter of fact, the uproar begs the question, why the hell should anyone care if the gov’t is surveiling them, if they aren’t doing anything wrong? What, are they going to see you wackin’ it or something? Maybe picking your nose? For chrissakes, people can hack into all manner of personal info via the internet; and the Times wants to make a big deal out of the NSA doing what they’re supposed to be doing – covert ops. How else are they supposed to catch domestic terrorist operations?
What he said….
Without a court approved warrant, this action by the Bush Administration is unacceptable. Unacceptable.
We’re talking about monitoring US citizens’ phone calls and communications without judicial oversight to prevent abuse.
Madison in Federalist #10:
“We must enable the government to govern the governed but IN THE NEXT INSTANCE OBLIGE IT TO CONTROL ITSELF.
The potential abuse in permitting the NSA to monitor American activities far outweighs any benefits.
SMG
What’s your take on what Levin has to say, Steve?
I still don’t see any there there.
But Jeff, feigned outrage feels so goooooood…
Well, except that there was judicial oversight, but what if there hadn’t been?!?!
test
We’re in a war. These things happen in a war. Get over it.
So we’re talking potential (and currently, at least, nonexistent) abuse versus tangible benefit to national security. It makes for an interesting debate, but I get the feeling that SteveMG isn’t really interested in honest debate. Anyone else get that vibe?
The Federalist Papers bit is nice, but we weren’t quite fighting a shapeless, nongovernmental global menace bent on destruction of the Western way of life at the time of their writing.
I’m all for freedom. Free free free for me. But if there’s a choice between splodeydopes taking out national landmarks or infrastructure and the NSA poring over my endless string of Google searches for nude midget lesbian pics…well, I don’t mind if they don’t.
Slippery slope thinking like SMG’s betrays a paranoid mistrust of our leaders who are charged, first and foremost, with protecting the nation. I don’t give a fart WHO is in office; this is still the land of the free and there is absolutely NO reason to assume or suspect that such actions will be used frivolously, and every reason to believe they will be used effectively.
But I’m optimistic that way.
From what I read it looks to me like they were using specific information found in Afganistan on captured terrorists and their computers. Specific phone numbers etc. This strategy has already borne fruit, evidently, the guy they caught looking to bring down some NYC bridges was caught using this info. What I’d like to ask the people so uptight about this is, how exactly they would like the government to go about finding and eliminating terrorist sleeper cells, and does the fact that you are an Americn citizen completely removes the ability of the US government to gather information on your possible treason?
Or would they like nice, secret Star Chamber courts set up so everything is nice and legal?
Also, who leaked? And can we put them in jail now?
Based on this story, and the earlier outrage over the Pentagon keeping an eye out for domestic threats to troops: YES.
This is just like the database article yesterday. Much ado about nothing. The government can, of course, collect on Americans with terror ties. This is no different than the FBI putting a tap on someone’s phone.
Again, EO 12333 protect you because it severely limits what the government can and can’t do in collecting intelligence on Americans. Everyone with any access to classified information also has several regulations that tell them exactly how 12333 applies to them. They also have a legal office to guide them.
The EO limits the potential for abuse in tree ways. First anyone overstepping it’s bounds is breaking federal laws and risking their careers at a minimum. Second, anyone that ever becomes aware that someone overstepped and doesn’t report it is breaking the same laws and taking the same risk. Third, when (not if) someone reports a person violating 12333 the US Congress is the agency that oversees intelligence so people like Barbara Boxer and John Kerrey are the people who decide if there’s been a violation.
Personally, SteveMG, I think the benefit of not having innocent people blown the fuck up far outweighs any possible abuse when collecting on people with concrete ties to terrorists.
I greatly respect SteveMG’s opinions. I think he’s wrong here, but I’d bet he’d be willing to debate, once all the facts are known.
Pick one: A. NSA reading your emails. B. Chuckie Schumer reading credit report.
Since I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, could someone please clarify if there is a distinction made between surveillance of 100% U.S. Joe Blow Citizen and others who are here on Visas (work, student, etc.)/ Non U.S. citizens?
Stunningly silly and endlessly aggravating how so many people, their own personal experiences unfailingly to the contrary, think Bushco is running the economy into the ground, suppressing dissent, and violating civil rights willy-nilly. The Democratic party is purely a faith-based initiative. When I see the Crawford Democrat death camps with my own eyes, I’ll start to take seriously this breathless crowd of “brave” rabble-rousers and sanctimonious whistle-blowers. Until then, they’re traitors and weak-minded ninnies.
I WANT TO SEE SKULLS, PEOPLE!!
Ooops. Sorry to both SteveMG and Jeff, that post comes off as pretty shitty toward Steve. Not what I intended. I meant to make my point strongly, not be a dick. Those two articles have me pretty damn testy. Again, sorry.
There is, natesnake. I’ve got to go to work, but I’ll try to put up an explanation from there and some links if folks are interested.
“This is Big Brother run amok,” declared Sen. Edward Kennedy
Apparently, these is a little more to the release of this “front page news” than the NYT is admitting to.
According to Drudge
BECAUSE OF THE BESTSELLER LISTS!!!
ISSCRISMASSTIMEBITCHESSSS!!!
From Levin:
Some brief background: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens—50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too.
It’s also clear from the Times piece that Rockefeller knew about the government’s eavesdropping, as did the FISA court. By the time this story is fully fleshed out, we’ll learn that many others knew about it, too.
From Bloomberg:
The international phone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds, possibly thousands, of people have been monitored without warrants to find numbers linked to al-Qaeda, the paper said.
I’m confused. From the information presented, it appears the communications that were monitored were not even subject to FISA. Yet the Bush Administration had to issue an executive order exempting this narrow classification of non-domestic communication from OIPR review. Levin does not clarify this discrepancy. What’s going on here?
“Non-domestic communication” was a very imprecise formulation. I meant “international communication involving at least one party being on American soil”.
Wow! I’m flattered there’d be one named after me.
Again, does anyone recall these people getting worked up when the Clinton’s were running their FBI file of the month club? Or, as Lew pointed out above, when Schumer’s goons were pawing through people’s credit reports?
Does it strike anyone else as chilling that the rights of people with ties to al’Qaeda are treated as more important than those of people in an opposing political party?
Ya know, I seriously wonder what’s worse: big brother or Ted Kennedy running amok?
At least they keep him from driving in DC.
Does the Patriot Act do anything other than grant the govt tools used in drug trafficking, RICO, etc., to combat terrorism? Why wouldn’t we give the govt all the tools it otherwise has at its disposal to fight these bad guys? If its bad for fighting terrorism, why is it okay for the war on drugs? Perhaps the difference is that those who would foment revolt but not act don’t want to get caught up in it. I agree that it should not be illegal to think a thought in the US, but perhaps the line should get drawn when those thought are dispursed amongst those who might act.
Hmmm.
1. “Levin does not clarify this discrepancy. What’s going on here?”
This is to bypass the existing bureaucracy. From what I understand the existing mechanism, entirely separate from legal requirements, is slow and outdated. The Executive Order was to streamline the process.
2. What I’d really like to know is if McCain and all the other assholes that are hobbling our warfighting ability will stand forth and take responsibility for their fuckheadedness costing American lives.
Already in Iraq soldiers are having the fight the same set of assholes repeatedly because Coalition forces aren’t allowed to hold anyone for more than three weeks. So “insurgents” who get captured just sit tight and wait the three weeks and they’re free to go and fight all over again.
What a crock.
3. I want a goddamn Special Prosecutor to dig out whomever is responsible for these leaks and hand their ass to them on a platter. These “leaks” are really fucking aggravating. I used to think that dismantling the CIA and firing all of their stupid asses was a bit too strong.
Now it’s starting to look pretty damn good.
Fire the CIA, and put’em on welfare.
Hmmm.
The more I see of him, the less impressed I am.
Could someone please, please, please whack Hugh Hewitt on the head for going to bat on Arlen Specter?
This guy is a frickin’ menace….hearings! How about stringing these traitorous leakers up by their toes in my public square with an open truck load of rocks.
Hey, I’ll bet the Times also plotted this whole transist strike thing, just to distract from the Iraqi elections.
Unless Jay Rockefeller, who was briefed, is going to claim that he was duped on this just as he was duped on WMD intelligence…
Certain this was already in gestation for tomorrows followup
Jill,
I take my Drudge with a boulder sized grain of salt, but you don’t find the connection a bit convenient?
I mean, it’s not like successful Iraqi elections with a large Sunni participation are deserving of front page news or anything.
Because the times would never use it’s place as a major news source to try and distract anyone from pro-Bush news, right?
Surely not. Just ask Judy Miller.
Jeff:
Your warning to wait until we get a more complete and fuller report on what was and wasn’t done re NSA monitoring of Americans’ communications is an excellent one.
We’re (well, at least I was) making comments based almost entirely on one NY Times piece; and most of us recognize that for lots of reason – ideological or otherwise – they have a tendency (hah) of being, let’s say, less than fair when reporting on this White House.
Obviously, there’s more “there there” then what we’ve learned so far from this one report; there always is on matters such as this.
However, having acknowledged that point doesn’t diminish my larger concern which was that, to phrase it differently, the power we give President Bush to use in protecting our liberties today from foreign enemies can also be power used tomorrow by a President Markos Zuniga to use against Americans that he believes are a threat to America and the nation’s security.
How can we prevent the latter from happening if we allow the former?
And if the idea of a President Zuniga ordering the NSA to monitor our communications with no judicial approval doesn’t scare you, then one needs more help than I can provide here.
SMG
IIRC with the database thing, it was like, “There’s no evidence that there’s anything wrong here, but people still are concerned.” Ok. I’m concerned about this stuff too–the more freedom I allow the government to do this sort of thing, the more oversight I want there to be. And if that’s not happening through the appropriate channels, it’s absolutely proper for the Press–via a “whistleblower”–to inform the public (although, I hate the tendency of folks to try and solve internal policy disputes via leaks in the press which muddy the waters/poison the well/insert cliche). Still:
So this is about a program that wasn’t illegal, but was suspended by the Administration due to concerns about oversight? So… what again is the deal here? Why are we getting all of these “old news” reports just right now?
So you’re saying that the Times knew about the transit strike ahead of time, but held-off reporting on that subject until some random point in the future? I don’t think that’s a great comparison. This *is* leaked information, and the Times *did* decide to publish it /today/ for whatever reason. Surely it’s not tinfoil hat country to ask why.
Jill
Did you mean the Dems didn’t want to front page that THEY LOST, YET AGAIN, ANOTHER ELECTION!
The timing of the NYT article is interesting in that it appears to offer cover for those voting against the extension of the Patriot Act. Is it possible that it was held till today for that reason?
Brahma
I think Senator RockeShumer should be able to answer that.
All this talk about “secret” spying is a red herring. When you’re being spied on, you know it. I know I’ll never forget it…the feel of sheets still rough from lye they used in the prison laundry; the taste of the pillowcase; the…wait.
Spying.
Right.
Got it.
Moving on.
Brahma: Held the article a year to give cover for voting to continue debate on renewal of the Patriot Act? Really?
My word, but you people are scary…and you’ve got the nerve to call those on the other side (and I’m not one of them “moonbats”.
All this talk about “potential” abuse not being a problem – the potential IS the abuse, for fuck’s sake. That’s why we’re getting into something here that COULD repeat COULD be Nixonian – the President ordering an agency of the Executive Branch to violate the law.
If there’s any of you out there who can truly say that they’re cool with ANY President (think Kerry, Dean, Kucinich – or Keyes, Bauer, and Quayle, for that matter) being able to do such a thing, say so, or STFU – you’re a hypocrite.
I’m sorry, are you referring to the Iraqi election? Because I don’t think any Dems were running.
As for the “front page” argument, do you actually read the New York Times? Or even look at it? Because right there, on the front page, in huge letters above the lead photo, is the lead story: “IRAQIS, INCLUDING SUNNIS, VOTE IN LARGE NUMBERS ON CALM DAY.”
You’re shadowboxing.
I agree that there’s more to this than I thought earlier. It changes things a lot if the story is the specific approval process used, but I still have a very difficult time believing that this is what the Times is trying to make it out to be. I’m very curious to see how this shakes out. I tend to believe that the Attorney General and the NSA understand the law on this better than the NYT does though.
Natesnake, the distiction in intelligence gathering is between those that are US persons and those that aren’t. A US person has quite a lot more in the way of protections. A US person is:
a) Any US citizen.
b) Any resident alien
c) Any organization substantially composed of US citizens or resident aliens.
d) Any corporation incorporated in the US not directed by a foriegn government or its agents.
So a noncitizen with a green card or one with a visa that is present in the country long enough has the same protections that a citizen does. Someone with a visa that hasn’t met the presence requirements does not. Also, agents of a foriegn government (embassy staff for instance) do not have the same protections.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that it’s for the same reasons they always decide to publish stories when they do. Hard news stories get published as soon as an event happens—i.e., the transit strike. Other news stories require deeper investigation, better reporting, and more time fact-checking. If the Times misquotes a transit worker, or messes up some subway numbers, they can run a correction with little harm done. Can’t say the same thing for a story like this one. And so it takes longer, because good reporting and fact-checking take a while (and even with the best reporting and fact-checking, things sometimes still go wrong).
Let’s look at the top stories in the Times today:
1. Iraqis, including Sunnis, vote in large numbers on calm day
2. Bush lets U.S. spy on callers without courts
3. Transit talks pass deadline for a strike
4. President backs McCain measure for abuse
5. White House to double spending on New Orleans flood protection
I’m sorry, I just don’t see the conspiracy.
Jill —
Please. Stop being disingenuous. Take a moment to listen to the news cycle today. The top story? Spying on Americans. It leads every report. The corollary story? The defeat of PATRIOT Act vote.
This has necessarily pushed the election down in the order of coverage, which has the practical effect of minimizing its importance.
I have heard a number of other media watchers today note that a 1-year old report released on the day of this vote is more than a little coicindental. Senators were citing it on the Senate floor today as reason to vote against the PATRIOT Act. And of course, had the Times truly wished to avoid the very appearance of ulterior motives, it could have held its one-year old report until tomorrow.
Do you honestly believe it wasn’t trying to affect the outcome of this vote today? Or to dominate the news cycle?
I find it hard to believe that someone who believes the patriarchy is poking around in every uterus is dubious about the New York Times having an agenda when it comes to the timing of their release of a story that is a year old.
Matsut —
The potential IS the abuse? Huh? Fine. Well then, the administration has said they haven’t broken the law or done anything unconstitutional. So the only abuse we know objectively and for certain is the leak.
And yes, had President Kerry or Gore taken these steps to gather intelligence, I’d be for it, absolutely—provided it doesn’t violate the law.
I’m very concerned for the future of our freedoms. Ever since this war mongering administration took office, I’ve had to jerk off away from south-facing windows, and always while wearing my radio-jamming helmet. I can cope with having to handle cash with latex gloves, lest they acquire my fingerprints for the rethugs to track my every move, but not being able to watch the sunset while I rub one out is an affront to liberty.
Hey, we all have to make sacrifices during times of war.
Jeff:
Why have a FISA court if the (any) administration can circumvent the judicial oversight element?
How do we prevent future
administrations from abusing this power? From using it to compile information on domestic political enemies and not on foreign national ones?
That’s the concern.
I have (little) doubt that I can trust the Bush Administration from not misusing this power. But I have no doubt – given my understanding of the history of men ruling over men – that future administrations won’t use that policy as judiciously.
You’ve read lots of history, Jeff. What does it tell you about men and power?
SMG
This wasn’t hidden. Ask yourself, why didnt they get a court order?
The idea, at least Levin’s, is that the Executive Order was meant to speed things up because of the imminence of the threat. The President has the power to protect the nation.
We’ll have to see when they did and didn’t go to the court. The court is essentially a rubber stamp, so why would they go around the court if not for expediency.
We just don’t know all the details at thise point.
Steve, when the administration is monitoring communications with combatants, you expect them to cease doing so because half the phone call is in the U.S.?
SMG,
You use the courts (FISA and others) when you want to use the information you obtain in a “court of law”. If information that the authorities obtain is to be used against an individual in court, it must be legally obtained.
The way I understand the NSA action, the information they were acting on was “time sensitive”, involving international communications and had to be acted on immediately. FISA warrants could take as long as six days and NSA info could be good for less than two hours.
The point I’m trying to make is, that as US citizens we should not be concerned that any information obtained without a duly authorized warrant would ever be used against us. Maybe that is naive, but that is what I read.
Jill
I’m sorry, are you referring to the Iraqi election? Because I don’t think any Dems were running.</i.
um Jill…I ‘m sorry, but since Dems have a vested interest in <i>everything BUT victory in Iraq,/i> and their corresponding political campaign to ensure that fact, I equate 70% voter turnout Iraq to yet another election in the LOST column for the Dems.
and unlike you I am not obsessed with all things NYT’s
<i>someone who believes the patriarchy is poking around in every uterus
Jeff, you may be on to something…a RE-Branding of the cause of freedom in Iraq!
<i></i>
From the News Hour interview with Bush (airing right now for me), via Romanesko:
Meanwhile the AP top story headline, and the headline on their photo of the day is Shocked lawmakers demand spy program probe.
This despite the fact that the NYT article clearly states:
What a load of bollocks. I mean, is the AP for real?
Damn, I’m misspelling everyone’s name today…
[TW: “again” –yeah, I KNOW]
Any Dem that knew about this was duped. They weren’t privy to the same intelligence the President had. And had they know what Bush knew, they never would have allowed him to shred the Constitution this way. They lied. They lied and American freedom gutted like a once proud fish.
Oh. And Lehrer noting that the spy thing was becoming THE story? He actually knew better, but he was just anticipating what paranoid conservawingnuts would likely claim to be the case.
Because had you asked him privately, he would’ve told you in no uncertain terms that this was all just serendipity.
The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney,
and herein lies the chief clue to the “leaker”, none other than Senior Rockefeller.
Dumbest, grossly under-qualified senator on earth (duped and foiled by the admin at every turn) or just a devious bastard desperate to turn Classified Senate Intel into a political win regardless of the national security implications.
Lehrer is just a shill for the republiKKKraps anyway. Why didn’t he open the interview by punching bu$h in the gut and spitting right in his face? Oh I’m sorry, that would be “improper.” WHAT ABOUT ILLEGALLY AND IMMORALLY INVADING A SOVEREIGN NATION WHOSE ONLY CRIME WAS FLYING KITES WHILE BROWN?
This is actually a really good interview. It’s a shame it’ll be “gotcha’d†to death instead of considered fairly…
The NYT article itself stated that the first link i n the eavesdropping chain came from phone numbers and email addresses found on computers, phones, ect… of actual terrorist.
Also states:
add in that the only monitored communications were
The outrage really seems insincere.
The phones numbers and email addresses are not pulled out of a hat. I have no problem with the NSA eavesdropping on any phone number listed on Mustafa Al Terrorist speed dial.
The fact that it is admitted the intercepts actually prevented terrorist attacks in the US and UK, while still the outrage, boggles my mind.
Like Junkyardblogs examples the other day of actual lives saved by use of ‘torture’:
Even in the face of real terror prevented and lives saved, still the faux outrage. Bleh!!
Slippery Slope arguers should note rls’s point: the evidence (if any) so obtained cannot be used in court because the methods for getting it are of questionable legality. Questionable, that is, by a sufficiently ideological or determined defense attorney—not to mention the fact that divulging it in court would inevitably require exposing the means of acquiring it, which would be avoided at all costs by No Such Agency.
IOW there are enormously powerful reasons for not using anything obtained by these means as any sort of pretext for “persecution”. As a practical matter it cannot be used for anything except as a means of identification of persons whose future actions might need to be frustrated, or about whom it might be advisable to collect clearly-legal information which could be used in a court.
Conclusion: just another media blitz designed to push something vaguely favorable for the Bush administration below the fold. Boring and repetitive.
Regards,
Ric
I guess I’m still living the conventional wisdom from about 2 years ago, when all of our emails were being read. What was the name of the CIA email-mining program? Phantom or something.
The story here is obviously not that Americans were being spied on- we all knew under the right circumstances Americans can be spied on. And many Americans- conspiratorial types- always assume they are being spied on. It would be interesting to hear a real discussion about this- the Congressional leaders that were informed about it, the FISA court judges.
The irony is that the moment of exposure, the minute the American people are informed that something is happening that needs a real debate–is precisely the moment in time when the demagoguery kicks in and real debate becomes impossible.
Levin’s a hack (but you already knew that if you skimmed Men in Black). He just cited the statute and either didn’t bother to read it or assumed his readers wouldn’t. The FSIS says that, for the President to authorize electronic surveillance, the AG must certify, among other things, that “there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” 50 U.S.C. s. 1802(a)(1)(B). Note it says United States person, not citizen.
The AG can authorize electronic surveillance in an emergency, but must make the above-mentioned certification within 72 hours. 50 U.S.C. 1805(f).
Boring, repetitive, and (unfortunately) highly effective.
Me thinks all this nefarious leaking is a substitute for…(via Taranto )
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on the day [Rep. John] Murtha offered his plan [for immediate surrender], “As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we’ll have a position.”
Didn’t the Democrats use to complain that President Bush didn’t have a plan? Now–three years, two months and six days after Congress voted to declare war–they’re promising that they’ll get around to coming up with a position real soon now.
We are starting down the path of unilateral disarmament. Al Qaeda isn’t. If this divergence continues, the chances of another terrorist attack on US soil will grow. Who will be blamed? Why the administration, of course.
And if there’s another terrorist attack, the American people, in their “righteous indignation” [FDR, 12/8/41] will demand retribution. And then, our civil liberties really will be threatened.
Sickening.
Sorry, but the president doesn’t have some uber-meta clearance denied to the rest of congress. At the most he has a super set of comparts, but i guaran-damn-tee-yah that plenty of senators and congressmen have exactly the same set of tickets.
It is the same as WMD intel. They heard it in committee and now have chosen to ignore it to score points over Bush.
They knew about Echelon, and all the other stuff we do. What poseurs, their scandalised horror is all manufactured.
sho, it is illegal to spy on our citizens until it becomes neccessary for national security.
At the most he has a super set of comparts, but i guaran-damn-tee-yah that plenty of senators and congressmen have exactly the same set of tickets.
Well, if you “guaran-damn-tee” it, then it’s settled. Who needs things like evidence when we’ve got a “guaran-damn-tee” from “playah grrl”?
sorry josh–should be obvious if you think about it.
i can’t disclose my work experience, but who do you think votes on the black budget, for example? Congressmen that aren’t briefed? Who sits on committees? Congressmen that aren’t briefed?
a lot of congress and a lot of the miltary have exactly the same accesses that the president does.
otherwise they couldn’t do their job.
i suppose you’d like me to “leak” something to prove it to you?
fat chance.
Yes, yes, you’ve got double-secret experience, I’m sure. I don’t want you to leak anything, as I doubt you know anything particularly interesting, but if it makes you feel good to allude to your access to dark secrets, please continue. In any event, the fact that some members of Congress must vote on classified matters does not necessarily imply that they receive precisely the same information that the President does. Maybe some do, and maybe they don’t, but “otherwise they couldn’t do their job” is an unsubstantiated assertion, not an argument.
What if email talks about potential corruption in government? How many whistleblowers will come forward if they knew they are being watched?
I usually agree with what this site says. But they are dead wrong on this one. What F.F said 200 years back, is still well and true. It’s dangerous to feel false sense of security and give away your freedom.
Government can go and get a warrant to monitor the people; they have been doing that against mafia for number of years now.
I hate conservatives who forget original intent of this country and start acting as lackeys of this administration. This is the first country in the world that rejected mom-pop government ideal and recognized that government at its best is just tolerable.
Can we for a moment forget that story was raised by liberal media and stop worrying about how they are going to use it? What if this would have been democratic administration, would you guys react in same way? Would you say that we need to start trusting the government.
America was formed by brave people willing to die for freedom. I hate to see original intent of America ruined by bunch of paper hawks, who support military as long as their own lives are not on the line. In this war against terrorism we support our right to defend aggressively because we don’t to loose our freedom here in our home.
Sorry. I call the administration wrong when I think they’re wrong—not so I can prove to people I’m not a lackey of the GOP. Regular readers know of my disagreements with the Bushies.
Here, though, we’re talking about the number one function of the government: protecting us. The FISA court traditionally rubber stamps these warrants (I believe I heard today they’ve turned down one request). But getting the warrant takes time. So the rub here was never with the administration getting warrants. It was with getting warrants in time so that the NSA info would still be viable.
The Administration has lawyers and advisors, who I’m sure thought this out and made certain what they were doing was legal. Plus, they were working with phone numbers, emails, and the like, taken from captured computers and self phones of known terrorists.
I’d say those are extraordinary circumstances. If you want to affect mannered outrage and offer platitudes about theoretical erosions of civil liberties and slippery slopes, then you aren’t being serious about what we were facing after 911. Nobody knew when the next attack was coming; everyone wanted it stopped. And the President acted.
Time will tell on this story. I think we’ll find that what happened is the administration spoke with FISA and congressional leaders and set up a plan whereby they acted on the intelligence, knowing they could never use it in court, but that it could be crucial to thwart attacks that were already in the works.
It’s easy to grouse in retrospect. Monday morning quarterbacking is something the Dems are good at. But until somebody proves the law was broken or the Constitution violated, I’m not going to run around showing my patriotic federalist papers bona fides by pretending to be outraged that the NSA was listening to known al Qaeda contacts on the telephone. I’ll be outraged when the time comes. But I don’t need to engage in unilateral, preemptive outrage. That’s for, like, fascists who hate brown people.
does not necessarily imply that they receive precisely the same information that the President does..
Nice try Josh, but sad for you THEY DO. That is the dirty little secret you (and not just you, but most) choose to ignore or lie about.
If you don’t know, it explains a lot, but sad and scary for the rest of us, your party continues to deny this truth to you –guaran-damn-tee-yah
I think it’s called a yay vote for H.J.Res. 114
I’m not going to run around showing my patriotic bona fides by pretending to be outraged
Why would you think you could? Joe Wilson’s got the lions share of the pie chart on this — don’t tread on his meme.
The Administration has lawyers and advisors, who I’m sure thought this out and made certain what they were doing was legal.
That’s not particularly persuasive – many powerful people with many sophisticated lawyers and advisors have nonetheless broken the law.
But getting the warrant takes time. So the rub here was never with the administration getting warrants.
As mentioned above, the AG has authority to use electronic surveillance w/out a warrant in an emergency situation. 50 U.S.C. s. 1805(f).
And now on to the witless flames…
Nice try Josh, but sad for you THEY DO.
I didn’t say that they didn’t. I merely said I wasn’t willing to take the word of a pseudonymous poster at face value. But now that you’ve put it in ALL CAPS, I’ve seen the light.
your party continues to deny this truth to you –guaran-damn-tee-yah
My party? How do you know I’m registered? How do you know I’m even a U.S. citizen? Your guaran-damn-tees seem pretty damn worthless.
My party? How do you know I’m registered? How do you know I’m even a U.S. citizen? Your guaran-damn-tees seem pretty damn worthless.
Oh gee, my bad. I should have ignored all of the obvious hostilities, Whatever. The “spoof” earnest thing is getting lamer by the second.
No pseudonyms here, Josh.
Prior to my career as a network engineer, I was a collector (google “cryptologic linguist”) for what used to be known as the Army Security Agency – in effect, a uniformed branch of the NSA. I’ve been out of it for over a decade, and there are still places I can’t go and things I can’t say without checking that it’s OK to do so.
But I’m not going to talk about clearances, compartmentalization, and access to classified material.
What I will say is this: if it had been a low-level schmuck like me (a mere Sergeant) leaking information to the press, I would be living the rest of my miserable life in the deepest darkest hole the Army and/or DOJ could find. Deservedly so.
I am more than outraged by the leaks coming from the House, the Senate, the departments of Defense and State, and from the intelligence agencies. Careers should be ended, people imprisoned.
Further, I consider it to be borderline treason for members of the press to actively solicit leaks of this kind, to the detriment of our defense. By so doing, they make themselves our enemies’ intel agencies.
A lot of people ought to be going down for this, and I think one or two dozen heads on pikes along the Mall might serve as decent examples. There’s a reason Dante put traitors in the lowest circle of Hell.
TW: heart—it’d do mine a lot of good to see some good old-fashioned hangings.
I’m just bewildered by this whole thing, and the ongoing maneuvering to kneecap any of our more effective terroristic countermeasures.
We know by now that terrorist cells work much like organized crime, though in a much more shadowy setting than, say, your average don. We HAVE to be able to act on intelligence from them quickly because of the cellular nature of their operations – that requires speed, for which we have to give up something.
IT guys often say you can get it fast, or you can get it right. CEOs say do both, because they have bigger issues to deal with than project management.
No one that I know is saying that gives license for wanton snooping; speaking for myself, though, I’m willing to give up a portion of “privacy” that I didn’t realize I had in order to more effectively combat the people who have declared war on us and are trying to kill us.
Which brings me to what I think is really going on: I believe that the majority of those on the left and a good number of libertarians believe, quite simply, that we aren’t at war; or that if we are, it’s “war” instead of war, and besides, it was based on lies so it really isn’t a war. Also: Halliburton. And anyway, we started it.
With that as an assumption, they then act in ways that are utterly baffling to those of us who believe we are in a war that has many fronts, not all of which are physical.
If you begin with the assumption that, say, the New York Times thinks the war on terror and the war in Iraq are just a bunch of bullshit, then this kind of reporting makes complete and perfect sense. Same with Dean’s and Murtha’s and Pelosi’s and Kerry’s pronouncements.
It’s the kind of fundamental difference that I’m afraid can never really be bridged, much like that between pro-choicers and pro-lifers.
It’s going to take another attack for it to perhaps change, but even then, the left and many of the Dems have an out – that Bush obviously put us in greater danger. They’ve already set up the theorem, they’re just waiting for the proof. A little attack, say a mall bombing, would do just fine. If it’s in a Red State, that actually might be better. That might “wake people up” to the real danger to life on Earth.
They’ve seen that their constituents can absorb a 9/11-style attack, and they’ve seen that the victims of such attacks become even more resolute in their hatred of George Bush and Republicans.
If I’m a terrorist, feeling all bummed by my comrades getting greased along the Euphrates, I’m really trying to find a silver lining. Fortunately, the infidels are cooperating:
— I now no longer need fear any kind of physical coercion; the Dems have basically put me in the same position as Nigel Tufnel’s guitar: It’s never been played. Don’t touch it. Don’t even point. Don’t even look at it.
— As a potential martyr, I know I won’t need to comply with a treaty I never signed; I won’t be incarcerated for much more than a fortnight; I won’t be returned to my country of origin; and I won’t be placed in some allahforsaken Caribbean gulag where they pee within 20 feet of my plastic-encased Koran.
— I also know that if the kufr find my Blackberry, they can’t really do much about checking on my contacts at Harvard and Georgetown. I’ll lose my speed dial to Ahmenedijad (sp?) and Dana Milbank’s (or is it Dana Priest’s?) e-mail address, but I can always rebuild my contacts list.
It’s great. I get all the benefits of being an American citizen and still get to plot its violent demise.
911 changed everything. We learned that oceans don’t protect us. The president is simply doing everything in his power to make sure we aren’t attacked again. This isn’t like Clinton using the White House travel office to get info on his enemies, this is about national security. Freedom isn’t free—there are sacrifices involved. We need to give the president all the power he needs to battle terrorism .
Hmm. Let’s compare.
The Clinton administration illegally obtains over 900 confidential FBI files on prominent political opponents, has them for over two years and the media yawns and Craig Livingston, a Hillary hand picked operative who kept custody of the files is laughingly referred to as a ‘big gallute’ in the MSM. No scandal here, move on.
The IRS ‘coincidentally happens to repeatedly perform audits on political opponents of the Clintons.
‘Many of the Clintons’ most vocal accusers found themselves targeted by suspicious IRS audits during the 1990s, including Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward Gracen and former travel office chief Billy Dale.’
‘More than a dozen conservative organizations were also hit with IRS probes, including the Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association and the Freedom Alliance.’
In fact, Independent Counsel David Barrett is preparing a final report, which reportedly includes evidence of politically motivated IRS audits launched by the Clinton administration. (How much of this did you read about in the MSM by the way?)
Furthermore, ‘lawyers for Mr. and Mrs. Clinton at their Washington law firm, Williams and Connolly, have pressed the three-judge panel overseeing the independent counsel to delete damaging portions of Barrett’s report, arguing that allegations of illegal activity, for which no charges were filed, should be snipped before the report is made public.’
Gee, no scandal there.
Yet in a time of war, with lives potentially on the line and national security at stake, the democrat/MSM coalition manages to whip up a mini-tempest of faux outrage about the present administration doing it’s job in protecting our nation, while at the same time they promote the impression that the Bush administration is invading everyone’s privacy and they deflect attention from ongoing investigations of high level and real politically motivated abuse of government power by highly placed democrat officials! Not only that, they manage to deflect attention from the momentous events in Iraq and minimize them!
If nothing else, I admire the democrats for their ability to obfuscate and out maneuver their somewhat flat footed opposition (Other than that I despise them)and deflect attention away from who the real threat to the freedoms we take for granted are.
Two separate issues are being conflated here. One is the wisdom of the policy, the other is the legality of the policy. The platitudes about 9/11 go to the former, evaluation of the second requires analysis of the applicable statute, which nobody appears interested in doing in any serious way.
The “spoof†earnest thing is getting lamer by the second.
I think you mean “The ‘spoof’ earnest thing IS GETTING LAMER BY THE SECOND!!11!!one!”
The President has come out and taken ownership of the NSA program and is actively defending it. He says it will continue. According to him this program is reviewed, tweaked and renewed every 45 days. At these intervals Congressional leaders, of both parties, are briefed on the program.
Apparantly there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional regarding the NSA program. Josh, put that in your pipe and smoke it!
“platitudes”?
There are plenty of platitudes being uttered on both sides of the debate. It feels like every thread I’ve seen on the subject is apparently required to cite Benjamin Franklin.
I’m probably exaggerating, though. JUST LIKE THE THREATS FROM THE SO-CALLED “al Quaeda”.
My guess is that the people in the NSA and Justice have analyzed the applicable statute and come to the conclusion, without benefit of your magnificent input, that the program is legal and constitutional. You may continue to disagree with that analysis, as you are wont to do, but I don’t think your disagreement is going to sway the President.
josh, read this.
especially this–
I’m with Russ–let’s see heads on pikes. The leakers compromised lawful intel collection.
That is illegal.
And let’s see briefing lists published for those congressmen that were briefed. I am confident that the security officers still have them.
GW’s own words
. And the outrage, outrage I tell you from the
patrioticpantywaists of the 9/10/01 crowd is beyond the pale.What, the President’s speech? I don’t really care whether Congress knew about it – I was only pointing out that I’d need more than your word to accept that it was. Whether Congressmembers “were briefed” is irrelevant to whether the Executive Order violated the FSIA. Please read the applicable statue before you go opining on whether the NSA program was lawful or not. Or don’t, BECAUSE 9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING!!1!1!!
How could anyone seriously argue:
1) Disclosing the identity of a CIA desk-jockey named Valerie Plame merited both appointment of an independent prosecutor AND a two-year media feeding frenzy, but
2) The NYTime’s disclosure of a classified program to intercept communications with Al Qaeda from inside the US does not merit IMMEDIATE investigation and eventual prosecution of the traitorous pondscum who made it possible?
Let’s set the way-back machine to July 24, 2003, when Chuck Schumer called for an investigation of Novak’s story about Wilson and Plame:
Right, and whoever told Al Qaeda, through the NY Times, that their international calls were being monitored put a gun to all our heads.
Got that? The fullest extent of the law. Zero tolerance.
Not a shred of evidence has ever emerged that disclosure of Ms.Plame’s identity “undermined our national security”. But this new criminal disclosure of a classified program so obviously adds to the risk of terrorism in the US that if Senator Schumer does not immediately call for an FBI investigation, there can only be one reason:
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!
josh , you can go ^^ up to see my response.
Well, this will come in useful when Hillary Clinton is elected President and the FBI is directed to investigate, well, you lot, on suspicion of being associated with white extremist terrorism. Or something. Without judicial review or justification.
Three quotes:
“Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
“The government turns every contingency into an excuse for enhancing power in itself.” – John Adams
“This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men, who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them, cannot be enslaved.” – Benjamin Franklin
Why the hell is it that so-called “conservatives” are acting like serfs, and supporting the Divine Right of King George Jr?
I’m sorry, are you unable to read? What are you still doing on the internet?
It seems unlikely that the leak will hurt national security.
Can you imagine Al Qaeda agents actually thinking that the US doesn’t eavesdrop on them because of our precious liberties blah blah blah?
BUSH,JEFF TO US:You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know:my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty…we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ‘em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!
If you say so.
“Slippery slope thinking like SMG’s betrays a paranoid mistrust of our leaders who are charged, first and foremost, with protecting the nation. I don’t give a fart WHO is in office; this is still the land of the free and there is absolutely NO reason to assume or suspect that such actions will be used frivolously, and every reason to believe they will be used effectively.”
You naivete is *frightening*.
You justify this administration’s actions pretty much on the grounds that they assure you they have good intentions and I assume that you think we’re at war pretty much because they assure you we’re at war. (Or are you referring to the ongoing conflict in Iraq, a moronic adventure we started, rather than the “war on terror”, a war that will exist so long as we continue to say it exists?) This is still the land of the free….why? Because people keep assuring you that it is? Because it says so in that song?
The constitution’s checks and balances are there so that no-one can ever exercise a serious abuse of power. There’s no issue of whether or not someone can circumvent it on the grounds that they have good intentions. They *can’t*, and they can’t for very good reasons. Power corrupts, and our leaders may think they’re doing good when they’re doing harm. The constitution has been created by people with cool heads to try to stop the hot-headed leading us to hell with their good intentions.
Man, it makes me laugh until I cry seeing the people who think they’re patriots supporting a commander in chief who has betrayed the very essence of what this country was once about.
“Why the hell is it that so-called “conservatives†are acting like serfs, and supporting the Divine Right of King George Jr?”
That rings so true to me. I visited Britain recently. That place is far, far less like a monarchy than we are today. They have far greater freedom in their everyday lives, in the press… and they have a far healthier scepticism towards their leaders. They treat Tony Blair like an employee subject to constant scrutiny and criticism, not like some untouchable monarch as many people do here with Bush. (“Hey! You oughtta show some respect for the office of the president!”) The founding fathers of our country would be horrified by the reversal of roles. That country we like to lampoon has become a place of great liberty and free thought, whereas we’ve becomed a deferent imperial power. We’ve become what we once hated.
Yeah, RIIIIIGHT
BWHAHAHAHAHAH!
Please do outline how my view is incorrect.
Wow, this is certainly taking some time for you to prepare. I’m expecting a devastating magnum opus.
Or, alternatively, there’s always the possibility that you simply take it as an article of faith that the US is the most free country on earth, and therefore have no need to check to see if this axiom actually bears any scrutiny.
What would it take for you to make the judgement that the US was no longer the country in pole position? If you can’t answer that question, and show how this is currently NOT the case, then your opinions on the USA regarding this matter are devoid of meaningful content.
BUSH,JEFF TO US:You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.
…which doesn’t include alcoholic fratboys going AWOL from National Guard duty…
“Yeah, RIIIIIGHT
BWHAHAHAHAHAH!”
Oh man, that’s solid gold. A comedy writer who wanted to convey an ignorant, insular American couldn’t have done any better than that.
I just spent three years living in London. I agree with what that guy says. England is expensive, but if I could afford it I’d live there, certainly for the next ten years. Their media are so much better than ours (especially TV news), they aren’t in thrall to “morality” that comes out of an ancient book, they’re not so colossally ignorant about the rest of the world, they’re not arrogant in assuming that their nation is the greatest on the face of the planet (in fact they tend to exist in a state of constant, healthy scepticism about it), and they don’t live in a police state, which is what this place is starting to feel like. We’re supposed to be the rebel nation that defied authority and did its own thing, yet Britain is far, far less deferential to the people at the top. Most people here probably have little idea what Britain is like. They probably think that everyone there lives in a strict social hierarchy and loves the queen or something. It’s what we show in the self-congratulatory movies we make, right?
About the only freedom they don’t have there is the right for citizens to keep and wield devices made for the purpose of killing other civilians. I think I could probably live without that one.
Wow you must really trust our president, if your willing to blow off the rape of our rights as citizens of the United States.
Effective in catching bad guys or not, it needs to be by the book and thats the bottom line.
After all, our rights were written for reasons, at the time, the leaders and the civilians where closer to equality and balance then any other point in history but have fallen further and further since.