“Terrorist” Surveillance:
By on Feb 5th, 2006 at 1:28 am
“Terrorist” Surveillance:
“Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat,” the Washington Post reports.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
fear the man!
February 5th, 2006 at 2:16 amIraq didn’t have WMD’S, enought troops were sent, Torture doesn’t work, and now this? Pretty soon these people might start listening to their experts.
OK, ,maybe not. But wouldn’t it be nice if they at least stop believing their own bullshit?
February 5th, 2006 at 2:31 amIt is amazing that this Administration believes that the American public is this dumb. Or are we?
This Administration parades it’s soldiers around, hosting town halls and invigorating news blitz’s so as to rally the hearts, minds and emotions of the American public for their cause. Many critics call that Fascist Fervor. But look at the WHOLE picture.
Why would one spend time and energy defending your innocence?
Why?
And when asked to reveal the specifics in private so as to exonerate the NSA program, the commission is told no. They aren’t qualified or have the necessary security clearance to be “PRIVY” to such information. This smacks of a weak defense:
No Body
No Crime.
If they parade around telling the American public of their innocence and refusal to share necessary information that would lift any degree of suspicion to the claims of infringements to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then their behavior only reinforces such suspicions of wrong doing. Their position of claiming innocence while the accusations mount, is not countering the claims of illegality. And Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden’s “Not PRIVY” claims to the investigative panel only helps to enforce suspicions.
I’ve heard several ways that this warrentless wire tapping is being described by the White House Administration and talkies. Each explanation paints a picture of wide coverage of data mining so as to extrude facts. The “blanketing” of the operation is in and of its self a term that denotes wide coverage and wide reaching. And with no hard presentation of evidence to either the public or to congress, the Administration begs the publics questions.
However, what I’m beginning to sense from the Administration and the talkies is the anthem of, “How dare they.”
How dare the NYT reveal this NSA program to the public.
How dare Congress ask us to be specific about hard facts.
Etc. etc. etc.
Our Founders warned us of this.
Our Forefathers warned us too.
Scholars have written commentators have spoke, are we deaf?
The Administration hopes that we are dumb.
February 5th, 2006 at 3:15 amBrrrrrrring,
Brrrrrrring.
The New Caller I.D.
Courtesy of the NSA
February 5th, 2006 at 3:27 amVice claims that illegal wiretapping has saved thousands of lives… mmmmhhhhmmmmm. In the next paragraph, “supporters” say that success cannot be measured by the number of suspects it confirms. Yeah…sure… I especially like Hayden’s comment, the program supplied information “that would not otherwise have been available.” WELL DUH!!! THAT is the problem here! Stupid F*ck!!
February 5th, 2006 at 4:39 amThe United States will become a democracy only when the People reassert sovereignty over governmental functions, functionaries, and elected officials.
It really is that basic a proposition.
That having been said, please resume your ‘current events’
discussion.
(Thank you.)
February 5th, 2006 at 5:35 amI believe Gen. Hayden will be on a Sunday Talk show this morning. I’d guess not much illumination will happen as the administration is in full PR mode, AG Gonzales tomorrow at the hearings will be full PR.
I think the President has focused this in simple terms “why wouldn’t we want to listen to the enemy”….it just may work because I don’t think the general populace is as focused on this as the Blogosphere.
February 5th, 2006 at 7:21 am“the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country [that] they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.”
February 5th, 2006 at 8:06 amhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?ex=1295154000&en=f3247cd88fa84898&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
Shouldn’t these leakers be shot as traitors? Isn’t this aiding and abetting the enemy? You have to recognize folks they are not going to give an inch. See here is the big problem, the state deptartment was pissed out of existence after the invasion and because it is now a military operation they have no say now. How wonderfully convenient is that, just cut out any legitmate school of thought INSTITUTION and grab the Military and go initiate your next foreign policy adventure. Can we make it to the next Presidential election without a resignation?
February 5th, 2006 at 8:08 amI hope so , someone has to carry water for this plan and a good flushing of the bushes with regards to candidates and their intentions regarding this administration’s foreign policy direction i think is a pre New Hampshire must. The Administration cant say that all of this is just a response, that would leave them saying basically We don’t have a plan. Spreading Democracy became lame excuse #14 for reasons to be in Iraq, so they should admit they have a plan right?
I guess the terrorist have gotten smart and stopped using the landline telephone and started using wifi in some neighborhoods,cranked up encryption and VOIP, and plan an attack without worrying about being traced or easedropped.
February 5th, 2006 at 8:18 am#10,
February 5th, 2006 at 9:00 amI think you have that right.
Always fighting the last war, like
fussing over nailclippers.
Sometimes I think our government couldn’t
be more obtuse if they tried. Then other
times I suspect they are trying to be obtuse.
Its really about monitering US Citizens and how much of a threat we are too gwbush and his adminstration. We as Citizens in bush’s “HomeLand” are the real enemy’s of the State.
Hasn’t anyone figure that out yet? Before gwbushco was appointed to fearless leader our country was called”Our Country” soon as 9-11 happened bushco started calling “Our Country” The Homeland why hasn’t anyone connected the dots. We are now an Offical Facists Country with our very own Dicatorship.The poor has been given a death sentence I’m just waiting for Crematoriums to be set up in each city to burn the bodies as thousands will die without benefits such as housing,food and medicine. Then the next will be the tumble down of the Middle Class into the Poor Class an they too will be taken care of.
February 5th, 2006 at 9:00 amWhat is the problem with this site all of a sudden?
I have to enter a code now to submitt my posts, and many of my posts do not get added and give a message that I must contact admin.
This is rediculous. I used to enjoy the fact that people could communicate and debate here on this site, but now it seems to have become a Nazi controlled site.
What is going on with all this control? I understand the need to limit unreasonable posting, but lets be realistic.
So does anyone from TP have any answers as to why a 4 digit code is necessary and why 90% of the posts need admin authorization?
February 5th, 2006 at 9:11 amNo probable cause.
February 5th, 2006 at 9:12 amThruout history ,all oppressive governments have spied on their citizens >To day Iran does it, so does Cuba , Hugo Chavez , Russia , so does the Bush administration . And why not they all in common are scared shitless of their enneny : the general population .
February 5th, 2006 at 9:23 am#14 Comment by Gus, the Loving OBGYN
Good point, as their authority rests in reasonable doubt. Two different legal terms. One works in Federal courts, while the other I can use in small claims. I’ll let Y’all figure it out.
Also forgot to add on my prior post, #3
Questions that need to be answered:
Q: If the “HOT PURSUIT” is at the center of the program, then why wasn’t the FISA laws amended?
Q: If the Big 8 from the Intelligence Committee said it was not wise to move forward in such a manor as proposed, why did you?
Q: If the law says that ALL members of the Intelligence Committee must be briefed, why weren’t they?
February 5th, 2006 at 9:35 amIsn’t a large part of this program the machine driven scanning of effectively all traffic through a traffic node such that a warrant would be impossible to obtain? You can’t go to a judge and ask for a warrant that says the NSA wants to scan all telecommunications traffic and if the machine finds a word or pattern,then NSA would go deeper and begin scanning all the traffic associated with that number.
February 5th, 2006 at 10:07 amIt’s only after the machine scanning recognizes a number as “of interest” that further,human, scanning begins. But again,how can the NSA get a warrant that will not only look at the number and the first degree of seperation,but the second and third.
The actual method employed is still unclear,but it seems unlikely that eavesdropping on domestic numbers as a result of this method can be legal simply because no existing law permits such wholesale applications of wiretapping.
I hope that the Specter hearings even if they’re closed at some point will provide some clarification of the actual method in order to assess legality.What happens after that will be driven by that description.
It’s only after the machine scanning recognizes a number as “of interest†that further,human, scanning begins. But again,how can the NSA get a warrant that will not only look at the number and the first degree of seperation,but the second and third.
Comment by TJM
That’s why they have up to 72 hours to obtain a warrant.
February 5th, 2006 at 10:24 amPresident Bush and his repugnant military are hell bent on destroying our civil liberties and killing women and children!!!
February 5th, 2006 at 10:49 amProbable Cause? Habeas Corpus? We don’t need no stinkin Constitution. We got George the dumber. Until he is impeached, that is.
February 5th, 2006 at 10:54 amWouldn’t this have been a better discussion around 3 years ago. Did invading Iraq prematurely, give away a possible real connection to Al-Qualude. What about Dr. Kahn , is he considered part of Al-Qualude? So there were no Hamaas supporters in this country who were being listened to? Now it’s just Al-Qualude, I don’t buy it.
February 5th, 2006 at 11:03 amHow was the NY TIMES given permission to obtain and posses classified material, let alone for a whole year? Who’s phone and internet system do the Saudi’s use when they’re in this country?
What did john Bolton say to Judy Miller while she was at the Alexandria Crow Bar Motel?
February 5th, 2006 at 11:05 am#17 Comment by TJM
The Federal Law requires Probable Cause
Small Claims requires Reasonable Doubt
The NSA rests in their reasoning as REASONABLE DOUBT.
A criminal court will laugh you out of the court room if your case rests solely in reasonable doubt. The judge would tell you that he/she reasonably doubts your case.
GET IT!!!
February 5th, 2006 at 11:18 amhayden just called the 72 hour window an “urban myth”…
February 5th, 2006 at 11:23 amon stephenopolis…
Hmmm…a domestic surveillance program that violates the Constitution and does not catch terrorists. What is the next justification for the program? And if it was so widely known that this program didn’t catch terrorists (who, more than likely are not making plans over the phone) and it is still being implemented, then the quesiton becomes who else is being spied on besides “terrorists”
February 5th, 2006 at 11:39 am“urban myth” – Sure. Is that kind of like the Gonzales Geneva Convention “Quaint”? Has a kind of ring to it. Don’t it?
February 5th, 2006 at 11:41 am#2 Max-1
February 5th, 2006 at 12:11 pmWell stated.
That is supposed to be #3 Max-1
February 5th, 2006 at 12:12 pmWonder if the folks doing surveillance got any good soup recipes during their “spying” on Americans. They certainly didn’t find any terrorists and they haven’t saved any lives in Iraq and they didn’t prevent 9/11.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:18 pmOne more thing – what a waste of tax payers money. Senior’s pay more for their drugs while Bush&Co waste tax dollars on spying on Americans without a warrant.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:19 pmO.K.
I sat through this Barney Fife twice today, once on ABC and then on FOX. Clearly, both were platforms for Gen. Michael V. Hayden’s claims that the NSA surveillance program is not an American spy program. That this program is legal as it rests in the reasonableness of suspicion. That this program is not operating in conjunction of the FISA laws. And this program was reviewed by the Big 8 of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Here’s my break down:
The program’s reasonableness is enough proof to monitor international calls so as they may be screened for “catch words/phrases”. Federal courts require that a level of suspicion be attainably proved. But that is, of course, if the NSA goes to the court for approval/warrants.
Gen. Michael V. Hayden argues that the FISA laws are “Slow and complex”. That the NSA needs the “Agility to have a HOT PURSUIT” and that the Attorney General would need more than the 72 hours alloted by the FISA laws to gather appropriate information and proof to present to the FISA courts. This all but explains why the NSA does not follow the FISA laws. The laws are slow, antiquated, and too complex to enable the NSA to act quickly. But in his explanations as to why the laws don’t work, he fails to explain why the laws haven’t been amended so that they can work to both the advantage of the NSA and to protect our rights. He gives no argument that the laws aren’t needed, only that the laws don’t work. This smacks of arrogance, IMO, that because the FISA laws are broken they don’t need to be fixed? He never once argued that the FISA laws don’t apply, only that they don’t work. So design them so they do work! And lastly on this point, the General explains, with as little candor as possible, that had they pursued the necessary changes in the law, that pursuit would have divulged too much information and would have blown the cover of the operations. And you think those terrorists aren’t watching us now???
He argued that when designing this surveillance program, he presented it to the Big 8 of the Senate Intelligence Committee for approval. However, law stipulates that the approval from the Senate Intelligence Committee must come from all members of the committee, not just some. Also, in seeking such approval, Gen. Michael V. Hayden notes that the Big 8 that reviewed the program did advise him that the program, in definition, will not work in conjunction of the current FISA laws.
One would need at least an eighth grade education to know that if you are going to do something that might be called into question, you seek appropriate advise. And when that advise is given, you follow it, especially if said advise tells you that what you’re about to do wont work.
Here is the nut shell:
Had the NSA, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, and the president gone and amended the FISA laws, this issue would be a non issue. But because they chose to act in nonconformity to the existing FISA laws and their Big 8, they are the ones that have drawn this into the public eye for scrutiny. Do not let their deflection of their lawlessness fall on the American shoulders.
I agree in the theory that detection and protection is important. I do not agree in the theory that allows the detection of terrorists and the protection of my person to come at the expense of my Bill of Rights.
Ben Franklin wrote those words during a time of war on our soil. During a time that America was under the strain of terrorists shooting and killing our men, women, and children on our shores. I would much rather listen to a man’s words from the past that speak of experience rather than the words of men, whose words speak only of fear.
A great president once wrote:
Little did he know that it would be another president that we need to fear.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:22 pm#15 – good point – guess we are the enemy.
to RemoveBush – don’t know what your issue is with posting. no problem here.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:27 pm#24 and #26 – yeah, it’s also like the constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. It’s the same mindset. You got it.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#33 Comment by cats are flyfishn
You do know that Bush actually used the expression “Just paper” to describe the body of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:34 pmStatements are made about changing the FISA laws. That still doesn’t change the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:34 pmMax-1 – I didn’t actually quote Bush – just posted the general idea. I added goddamn just for a little emphasis. It’s what Traitor Rove would do.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:36 pm#35 Comment by cats are flyfishn
February 5th, 2006 at 12:39 pmThe Fourth Amendment could be kept in tact IF the FISA laws specified the who, what, where, why of the NSA spy program. But that doesn’t look likely to happen as Bush blatantly said that any attempts to get the FISA laws changed that require divulging the nature of the spy program in any way will be thwarted by him.
Max,I get it but your “explanation” is bereft of logic and your usage of the word “doubt” ruins it. It’s reasonable cause or probable cause. As I said,reading the WaPo article again suggests that the amount of surveillance is so broad that the FISA would not issue such a broad warrant. If the trail includes a massive # because they first select a call based on machine analysis and then proceed to look to a geometricly expanding number of connections to the first degree of seperation then the second etc.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:55 pmI think its great that Specter doesn’t think the arguement by the government will work. That’s why the hearings should be interesting.
It doesn’t matter if you and everybody here have concluded,correctly,that the program is illegal,if there isn’t a mechanism to begin the process of bringing the issue to light.
Assume the Democrats in Congress agree that the program is illegal,ask yourself how many Democrats are committee chairmen in the House or the Senate.
Max-1 you are hot on the point today!!
February 5th, 2006 at 12:56 pmCats are flyfishin – I saw that Bush was indeed quoted as saying “that goddamned piece of paper” in reference to the Constitution.
February 5th, 2006 at 12:58 pmmarie and cats – there’s more: http://www.gnn.tv/threads/10799/Bush_on_the_Constitution_It_s_just_a_goddamned_piece_of_paper
but i remember judd saying once that “capitol hill blue” was not a reliable source; this piece was written by another guy…with 3 witnesses…
February 5th, 2006 at 1:23 pmComment by TJM
OOPS doubt, er… cause, er… doubt their cause???
February 5th, 2006 at 1:44 pm#36, #41
February 5th, 2006 at 2:23 pmAfter searching around a bit, I found many, many references to the Bush quote on the Constitution, but they are all on blogs, and all eventually go back to CHB. So that appears to be one source, and we should require two sources before we declare it 100% true. Unlike Republican sites, we do try to be accurate and honest.
READ THIS EVERYBODY WAR IS COMING SOON
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/02/battle_plans_fo_1.html#more
February 5th, 2006 at 4:03 pmI first read the quote about the Constitution in CHB. I found Doug to be accurate and his writers interesting. But right you are. The source should always be verified. Regardless, it sounds like Bush doesn’t it? This week should be interesting and, hopefully, one step closer to impeachment.
February 5th, 2006 at 5:50 pmWe wouldn’t have given it a second thought to that quote if it didn’t sound like something the boy king would say!!
February 5th, 2006 at 6:32 pmSo the government says out loud , Hey we don’t want to give up or methods because it’s working against Al-Qualude, Dont you think Al-Qualude would reconsider a tactics change regardless of what specifics were announced. Is it Al-Qualude knows that the American people would never tolerate internal spying of it’s own citizens, and this to call their bluff?
February 5th, 2006 at 7:01 pmDO THE BUSH PEOPLE EVEN CARE THAT THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS DIDN’T FIND ANYTHING?
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TOLD THE BUSH PEOPLE THAT THE SADDAM/WMD SOURCES THEY WERE USING WERE FULL OF CRAP TOO, BUT THE BUSH PEOPLE WENT AHEAD WITH THE WAR ANYWAY.
WHO’S TO SAY THE BUSH PEOPLE WON’T IGNORE THIS ASSESSMENT AND GO AHEAD AND START HAULING PEOPLE AWAY? I WOULDN’T BE SURPRISED.
February 5th, 2006 at 9:49 pmThe actual method employed is still unclear,but it seems unlikely that eavesdropping on domestic numbers as a result of this method can be legal simply because no existing law permits such wholesale applications of wiretapping.
I hope that the Specter hearings even if they’re closed at some point will provide some clarification of the actual method in order to assess legality.What happens after that will be driven by that description.
Comment by TJM — February 5, 2006 @ 10:07 am
Epic. org details these programs and Laws very Well. Those interested in details of the Programs and the Laws should peruse this site;
February 5th, 2006 at 11:20 pmhttp://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/
Heres a Tidbit from the Site
The Digital Telephony Law (CALEA)
On the last night of the 1994 session, Congress enacted the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), sometimes called the “Digital Telephony” bill. CALEA requires telephone firms to make it easy to wiretap the nation’s communication system. The bill faced strong opposition from industry and civil liberties organizations, but was adopted in the closing hours of Congress after the government offered to pay telephone companies $500,000,000 to make the proposed changes.
Here is the nut shell:
Had the NSA, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, and the president gone and amended the FISA laws, this issue would be a non issue. But because they chose to act in nonconformity to the existing FISA laws and their Big 8, they are the ones that have drawn this into the public eye for scrutiny. Do not let their deflection of their lawlessness fall on the American shoulders.
I agree in the theory that detection and protection is important. I do not agree in the theory that allows the detection of terrorists and the protection of my person to come at the expense of my Bill of Rights.
Pretty much sums it up MAX-1.
But check this out HAYDEN makes it seem as if THEY cannot TAP Immediately in Hot Pursuit, thats NOT really so;
The problem with this argument is that the FISA Court is specifically designed to get warrants okayed really quickly and it almost never rejects a government application (I’m still trying to get confirmation on the exact stats).
Apparently, though, this rationale is even weaker than I thought.
It turns out that FISA specifically empowers the Attorney General or his designee to start wiretapping on an emergency basis even “without a warrant” so long as a retroactive application is made for one “as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.”
Looks as if Rovers ‘Political Winner’ may be a Dead Duck, and that accounts for the massive MSM spin.
February 5th, 2006 at 11:34 pmBTW dont these people have JOBS to do other than run around on Taxpayers Dollars acting as Pundits?
SO all Bush had to do was Call Mr Gonzales or His Designee.
Mr Gonzales HOW long does it Take you to answer the Phone
February 5th, 2006 at 11:38 pmand say YES or NO? A few Minutes? Maybe an Hour?
Apparently, they are not looking under “T” in the phone book.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:45 amJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 6:07 pmPayday Loans No Faxing
Staunch patrons of the extraordinary Miami Herald may obtain immediate payday loans no faxing for $800 even with unsatisfactory credit, submit your application twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week for a faxless payday loan.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:53 pmAuto Loan
Search For auto loans to have a choice to get an up to date truck in 20 hours by accepting a exclusive corporation.
April 8th, 2008 at 3:27 pmPayday Loans For The Self Employed
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:20 pmdefinition interest loan only
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:20 pm