News NY Times discloses secret Executive Order: NSA is spying domestically

[Moonbear]

It does raise questions about the ability to provide adequate oversight of programs like this. It probably works for most of these super secret programs, but what does a member of Congress do when in Rockefeller's situation?

A question that started coming up in the back of my mind when reading about that is, "What impact have things like C-SPAN coverage had on Congress' role in national security?" When there are television cameras constantly running, does that start forcing people to leave Congress out of the loop? What are the rules regarding holding a completely closed session of Congress? And if they did have such a completely closed session, where nobody except the representatives, the president, and other parties with appropriate security clearance and a need to be present were permitted in, how secure could the proceedings be, especially when you know the first thing the media is going to do is start reporting on this super-secret session of Congress that they've just been kicked out of? Ideally, that's how something like this would be addressed to Congress, where it's more than just a confidential memo to a handful of people who can't then disclose the information to anyone else to get their opinions on the legality of it. Something that involves enough members of Congress to be able to raise those questions and vote, but to keep the session private.

I'm not defending Bush's actions, just wondering if in the interest of making the activities of our leadership more open to the public view, which is generally a good thing, we have set up a system that hinders the sharing of information between the three branches of government in a manner that also hinders the ability to adequately utilize appropriate checks and balances for such sensitive issues.

 

[phcatlantis]

The program was so highly classified that only Kollar-Kotelly, the head of the FISA court, was briefed, and only four members of Congress, Roberts and Rockefeller of the Senate Intelligence Commitee and Hoekstra and Harman of the House Intelligence Committee were briefed.
It does raise questions about the ability to provide adequate oversight of programs like this. It probably works for most of these super secret programs, but what does a member of Congress do when in Rockefeller's situation?

Exactly how is briefing four intelligence committee members and one FISC judge on something this sensitive more inadequate than briefing two dozen members of Congress and twelve judges?

 

[edward]

The info below was on page 4 of my local paper?? Apparently one member of the secret court is not happy about the situation.

Updated: 11:21 p.m. ET Dec. 20, 2005
A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10538136/

 

[Astronuc]

DOD Surveillance of Anti-War Protests in Vermont Provokes Concern

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=857767
MONTPELIER, VT (2005-12-22) Peace activists in Vermont are up in arms following an N-B-C News report last week that a secret Department of Defense database listed 15-hundred suspicious incidents around the country in a ten-month period. Some on the list were in Vermont. A leading Senator from the Green Mountain State is also demanding answers from the Secretary of Defense.

Apparently some of those under surveillance are Quakers - a group of pacifists.

Now if the Bush as Commander in Chief and his military are spying on US citizens because of their pacifist anti-war activities, I am somewhat concerned.

Aren't they supposed to be spying on those who are trying to harm Americans, or otherwise threaten the security of US citizens?

Or perhaps the pacifist Quakers are perceived by Bush as a threat to his war.

 

[edward]

DOD Surveillance of Anti-War Protests in Vermont Provokes Concern
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=857767
MONTPELIER, VT (2005-12-22) Peace activists in Vermont are up in arms following an N-B-C News report last week that a secret Department of Defense database listed 15-hundred suspicious incidents around the country in a ten-month period. Some on the list were in Vermont. A leading Senator from the Green Mountain State is also demanding answers from the Secretary of Defense.
Apparently some of those under surveillance are Quakers - a group of pacifists.
Now if the Bush as Commander in Chief and his military are spying on US citizens because of their pacifist anti-war activities, I am somewhat concerned.
Aren't they supposed to be spying on those who are trying to harm Americans, or otherwise threaten the security of US citizens?
Or perhaps the pacifist Quakers are perceived by Bush as a threat to his war.

I have seen several similar links. It appears that the DOD has been assigned the task of spying on war protestors that was formerly done by the FBI during the Vietnam era.
It appears that the Bush administration has reincarnated Richard Nixon's paranoia.

WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

 

[Moonbear]

Now if the Bush as Commander in Chief and his military are spying on US citizens because of their pacifist anti-war activities, I am somewhat concerned.

I think that is the crux of the concern in this case. While we know he's been spying on some group of people, we don't know who. Without the warrants, and without disclosure of who was the target of surveillance, there's no way to know if it was only bona fide terrorist suspects, political opponents, anti-war protesters, absolutely anyone with family in the Middle East who received a phone call from them, etc. It's just my suspicious nature to wonder what does he have to hide if he couldn't disclose the names of these people to a court specifically formed to address these issues. I have no evidence one way or the other, but it sure does raise those questions, and I really want to see them answered.

 

[BobG]

Exactly how is briefing four intelligence committee members and one FISC judge on something this sensitive more inadequate than briefing two dozen members of Congress and twelve judges?

You've got a point. Considering this may violate citizens' rights and/or may violate a few laws, it really needs a public debate. If it's so highly classified that that debate can't occur it wouldn't be the first time a new toy was so secret it couldn't be used.

 

[SOS2008]

A question that started coming up in the back of my mind when reading about that is, "What impact have things like C-SPAN coverage had on Congress' role in national security?" When there are television cameras constantly running, does that start forcing people to leave Congress out of the loop? What are the rules regarding holding a completely closed session of Congress? And if they did have such a completely closed session, where nobody except the representatives, the president, and other parties with appropriate security clearance and a need to be present were permitted in, how secure could the proceedings be, especially when you know the first thing the media is going to do is start reporting on this super-secret session of Congress that they've just been kicked out of? Ideally, that's how something like this would be addressed to Congress, where it's more than just a confidential memo to a handful of people who can't then disclose the information to anyone else to get their opinions on the legality of it. Something that involves enough members of Congress to be able to raise those questions and vote, but to keep the session private.

I'm not defending Bush's actions, just wondering if in the interest of making the activities of our leadership more open to the public view, which is generally a good thing, we have set up a system that hinders the sharing of information between the three branches of government in a manner that also hinders the ability to adequately utilize appropriate checks and balances for such sensitive issues.

Here are some comments in recent dicussions regarding technology:

MITCHELL: Well, isn‘t there a need because of the change in technology? That‘s the argument.

BIDEN: No, not at all.

MITCHELL: That technology has increased exponentially and they‘ve got to move rapidly and they‘re intercepting, literally, millions of pieces of information an hour.

BIDEN: Let me explain that. I‘m going to tell you my perspective in that. Under the FISA law, the president of the United States can do all of this for 72 hours, for three days, without doing anything. You just do it, period.

So he doesn‘t have to go to a court at all to decide to pick up all this information. If he decides he wants to continue to do that, he has to then go to the court within 72 hours and say, look, these are the guys I‘m eavesdropping on and these are the people and this is the reason why.

And it‘s a very low bar.

Something like 19,000 times—what was it, 19,000, I can‘t remember now, I think it was 19,000 times, they‘ve gone to the courts in almost every case said fine, go ahead.

Now, there‘s another provision no one‘s talking about. The other provision we wrote into the law, back in ‘78, if I‘m not mistaken it was ‘78, we said if there‘s a declaration of war, and by the way a congressional authorization to use force which the president has, is equivalent to a declaration of war, constitutionally. If there‘s a declaration of war, you can go—you know, for 15 days, Mr. President, you can do this.

You don‘t have to ask anybody. You don‘t just seek any wire tap. For 15 days you can do this. So this idea he has that technology‘s changed. That‘s a bunch of malarkey. Technology has changed, but you have plenty of time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10565905/

And:

MITCHELL: What about the administration‘s argument that communications are now happening so rapidly and they are so intermingled between domestic and foreign, that to adequately protect American citizens, they need to take these steps?

GRAHAM: I think the administration has to answer a series of questions. One, what are the problems with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

No. 2, if they had identified those problems, why didn‘t they go to the Congress and ask that they be corrected. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Congress would have done almost anything the administration suggested.

And No. 3, of the cases that have been made based on these warrant-less intercepts, would they have been also made, had they followed the legal procedures. Has, in fact, this process of avoiding the law made us safer?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562660/

In regard to whether oversight may jeopardize national security:

STEWART: Well, your colleague and full disclosure, my pal, Jonathan Alter wrote in a “Newsweek” commentary that the only reason that the president did not want the NSA program to become public knowledge was because it was embarrassing and it would make trouble, not because it threatens national security. Does this fall into any pattern in this White House for dealing with sticky situations?

RICHARD WOLFFE [NEWSWEEK]: Sure, it does. The president likes playing the national security card. And frankly, you can see it in his press conference. He has gotten, in some ways he has the Democrats where he wants them to be. He can say, you‘re playing with the security of the nation and it is all about politics.

But, you know, I would agree to some extent with Jon Alter in saying this is more of a political problem than it is about national security in the end. Because as the president pointed out himself, al Qaeda and bin Laden himself are fully aware that this government and the United States in general eavesdrops on communications. The question is can they do it without a court warrant or not? And frankly for al Qaeda that‘s irrelevant. So, national security, it‘s not the problem. It is politics and the law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10572792/

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I find your request for sources to be ironic since you have yet to provide sources for your original assertion that Germany came under Nazi control in only a weeks time. The rise of Nazism and Hitler is usually covered in basic history courses and used as an example of population complacency and manipulation, which as pointed out earlier did not happen over night.

As I've already pointed out my points were in the context of the use of legislative power to take control of the country. I also believe that my statement was along the lines of "depending on how you look at it". It is a historical fact that Hitler was appointed chancelor on January 30th of '33 and the actual (legislative) move for control of Germany took place within the next two months with the dissolving of the Reichstag, outlawing of the communist party, the new elections, and the invoking of the Enabling Act. The burning of the Reichstag and the elections one week later with all that happened during that period are generally considered rather pivotal to the Nazi take over of Germany very much like the political events surrounding 9/11 seem rather pivotal to the thrust Bush received to his political career. You can request sources if you don't believe any of this happened or what the time frame for it occurring was but when it actually comes to the question of "How long did it take the Nazis to take over Germany" we're really just dealing with opinion. Do we start with when the party was formed? Since it was out of commision for a while following the Putsch do we start from when the party was reformed? Do we start from before the party existed? This is why I added my caveat "depending on how you look at it".

You claim you are not a Bush supporter (as has other members), but the constant defense makes if difficult to believe (and if you and these other members did not vote for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, I would be very surprised).

Then be very suprised. I'm notorious for playing devil's advocate. If the conservative view was the one with more voices here I would be arguing the other perspective.

 

[BobG]

I would say the issue is pretty clear cut. It was decided by the Supreme Court in 1972 (UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)) In fact, this decision led to the establishment of the FISA court in 1978 (in response to Article IV of Powell's opinion).

The decision was also upheld in 1985 (MITCHELL v. FORSYTH, 472 U.S. 511 (1985). It was determined that John Mitchell couldn't be sued for directing unwarranted wiretaps, but only because the wiretaps in question occurred before the 1972 Supreme Court decision established that the wiretaps violated the Fourth Amendment. (Interesting trivia: Samuel Alito was one of the attorneys arguing Mitchell should have immunity from lawsuits related to the wiretaps).

In other words, the FISA of 1978 provided a legal way for the government to conduct domestic electronic surveillance rather than a way to restrict domestic intelligence gathering.

 

[SOS2008]

As I've already pointed out my points were in the context of the use of legislative power to take control of the country. I also believe that my statement was along the lines of "depending on how you look at it". It is a historical fact that Hitler was appointed chancelor on January 30th of '33 and the actual (legislative) move for control of Germany took place within the next two months with the dissolving of the Reichstag, outlawing of the communist party, the new elections, and the invoking of the Enabling Act. The burning of the Reichstag and the elections one week later with all that happened during that period are generally considered rather pivotal to the Nazi take over of Germany very much like the political events surrounding 9/11 seem rather pivotal to the thrust Bush received to his political career. You can request sources if you don't believe any of this happened or what the time frame for it occurring was but when it actually comes to the question of "How long did it take the Nazis to take over Germany" we're really just dealing with opinion. Do we start with when the party was formed? Since it was out of commision for a while following the Putsch do we start from when the party was reformed? Do we start from before the party existed? This is why I added my caveat "depending on how you look at it".

Once you made the clarification, it made more sense what you were saying. I think the point now being made is in regard to requesting sources when not providing sources yourself (an ever-growing sticking point for me). Also, I am often annoyed when the general context of a post is ignored due to obsession over a minor comment within it.

The general context of my original post is that over time conditions become ripe for events. I have made this case in regard to Bush and Palestinian demonstrations for democracy due to the death of Arafat, Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union because their economic model could not compete with U.S. capitalism/imperialism over decades (not to mention others like the Pope, Margaret Thatcher, etc, who also played a role), etc. Its just BS and it seems to always be in support of Republican presidents (hmm).

Then be very suprised. I'm notorious for playing devil's advocate. If the conservative view was the one with more voices here I would be arguing the other perspective.

In all fairness I often detect a little more passion than I would attribute to the role of devils advocate, and assuming you voted it does not seem you would have voted for Kerry in 2004 (or Nader).

Anyway, back to the OP… Erosion of liberties does not happen overnight. There can be a catalyst, such as 9-11, that can fuel the beginning of erosion. But typically it will be a series of things, like election irregularities, fixing intelligence, leaking a CIA agent’s name to cover up the fixing of intelligence, torturing/secret prisons, use of WP, and domestic spying, etc. over time (and there are other things we don’t know about that could be added to this list). This isn’t a conspiracy theory—we know these things have really been going on.

And as you stated Bush has been in power for going on to six years—and that is a decent amount of time for such a process. Though I would claim it began before Dubya was elected in 2000—with his underhanded tactics to become Governor, Bush family ties, etc., and I pointed out his fascist behavior many times long before public knowledge of many of these activities. So let’s say it took Hitler about a decade to rise to power--Heck, if it did happen overnight, all the more reason to be concerned about Bush. History repeats itself, and if only we could learn from it. Let’s not be a complacent population.

 

[edward]

With all of the billions of dollars spent, and all of the secret spying, Homeland security doesn't seem to have people with a whole lot of common sense. For instance it wasn't until 2004 that TSA started a program to require Hazmat truckers to have background investigations.

It sems to me that this item should have been very high on the priority list, yet even after the idea was suggested by the NYC police department and pressed by a member of congress it still took another 14 months to implement the program.

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/2004/PR02660.Trucksec053004.html

But it's expected to take five years to check all 2.7 million truck drivers, and truckers fear logjams early in the program because there are few places to be fingerprinted.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/31/truckers.fingerprint/

WHAT ARE THEY THINKING ?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Once you made the clarification, it made more sense what you were saying. I think the point now being made is in regard to requesting sources when not providing sources yourself (an ever-growing sticking point for me). Also, I am often annoyed when the general context of a post is ignored due to obsession over a minor comment within it.

I know that sourcing is something that you are particular about and that many people are chastised for not doing. I do it when I think it is necessary and am willing to do it when asked but often find that people seem to ignore those things that I source. I doubt Informal Logic needed any links, but if he really wanted them he could have asked politely no?
I am rather annoyed with the way people accuse and catagorize so confidently.
I apologize for my side track on your comment but certain parallels being continually drawn were kind of irking me at that moment.

finish this in a bit...

 

[edward]

A major CIA blunder in Italy has me even more worried that our intellegence agencies are not quite up to par for the task that they are trying to do. I hope that they are better at spying on, than they are at covering their own trail.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/3546937.html

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The general context of my original post is that over time conditions become ripe for events.

What I saw was a parallel between Bush's actions(the OP) and that of Hitler/Nazis combined with paranoia about a fascist totalitarian state forming. I apologize for not being very clear about my point. In my opinion the very nature of our government and political system (or any like it for that matter) would make a gradual transition very unlikely and it did in fact require an aggressive seizing of power when the Nazis took control of Germany. If they had bided their time and waited for a slow transition, instead of coercion, violence, bribery, ect., I doubt it would have happened.
I think that here in the US while the balance between the two major political parties tips back and forth it stays relatively stable. I know that you have a nagging fear that Bush may somehow preemt the next elections and turn this into a real Totalitarian state, and I think that this is possible, but I doubt that it is very likely. I think that the conservatives are just having an upswing as a natural part of sociopolitical cycles and that it could easily go the other way again real soon.
What I worry about is that the left in their zeal to vilify the right are going to shoot themselves in the foot. The number of people I have met here, in CA of all the places, that have been involved with skinheads because they reacted adversely to the left's propaganda is really disheartening. I can only imagine how bad the phenomena is in other places where it's not so socially unacceptable to be associated with racists.

In all fairness I often detect a little more passion than I would attribute to the role of devils advocate, and assuming you voted it does not seem you would have voted for Kerry in 2004 (or Nader).

I didn't vote anyone for president to be honest.
Like I said I take what ever seems to be the underrepresented side. I almost worried about loosing my job once because I criticised Bush invading Afghanistan in front of a regular customer who blew up on me and didn't return to the store for a few months after that. My best friend's mother who is a hardcore conservative has bitten my head off over just about every political discussion we have ever had. She doesn't even want to see me or have anything to do with me anymore.

I think the rest of your post I have already adressed to some degree really.
I don't think we should be complacent but I don't think we should be overzealous either. You don't need to persuade the lefties just like the right doesn't need to persuade the righties. The ones that need persuading (or can be persuaded) are the ones in around the center and they tend to be put off by extremism(which is why they are centrists). When such a person isn't sure what to think of ID they aren't going to be persuaded by people implying they are stupid. Religeous people (and there are a whole hell of a lot of them) who aren't sure what to think about gay marriage are going to be put off by being told they must be bigots. People who aren't sure what to think about abortion won't take to well to being told they must want to take away womens rights..

 

[scott1]

Why does the media think they knew everything I do think that there was domestic spying but why does the NY times have the authority to disclose secert oders?

 

[Skyhunter]

Why does the media think they knew everything I do think that there was domestic spying but why does the NY times have the authority to disclose secert oders?

1st amendment to the constitution.

 

[BobG]

Why does the media think they knew everything I do think that there was domestic spying but why does the NY times have the authority to disclose secert oders?

They shouldn't have and, regardless of whether one agrees with domestic wiretapping policies, I'd tend to agree with Bush's assessment of the person who leaked Top Secret info.

It wasn't even necessary. There's plenty of unclassified info about this and you don't even have to do much searching yourself. The Federation of American Scientists have assembled quite a few unclassified documents on FISA on one page.

From unclassified sources, one could confidently infer a general idea of how the government conducts domestic surveillance, which leads to two points:

1) An anonymous source stating the government definitely does do this makes a better news story than one saying it would be shocking if the government isn't doing this.

2) The program itself is probably a little over classified, since only the details of how the program is conducted needs to be protected, not the existence of the program, itself. Potential public reaction to the program probably has a little to do with over classifying the program.

Edit: Some of the documents on the FAS page were used by the 9/11 commission to make their report. Going through them is kind of interesting. In general, Congress and the judicial branch have been very involved in trying to find the proper balance.

You have cases where people "crossed the line" violating the controls placed on domestic surveillance information and cases where people applied overly strict controls on domestic surveillance information. In other words, you have the mistakes you would expect in just about any process where humans are involved.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They avoided judicial review - that is the point and not the spying in and of itself. To argue that this is about spying, as opposed to unregulated abuse of power, is confusion at best, and obfuscation or outright lying at worst.

Btw, I watched an interview with Ann Coulter this morning. Holy cow! What an offensive and disgusting mouthpiece she is. Everything that came out was spin. It was like listening to Bush.

 

[SOS2008]

Excerpts from an interview last night on MSNBC with John Dean, former White House Councel:

OLBERMANN: Mr. Bush's defenders on this have said, in fact, he himself has quoted Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It says, he says, that it gives him the authority, requires him to protect this country in any way necessary. Is that absolute?

DEAN: Well, I've never read Article 2 quite as broadly as it's being read now, and I've often thought what would have happened if Richard Nixon had said, Well, you know, what this is really about is my commander-in-chief power. That's why I'm breaking into Daniel Ellsberg's office, to see if he's passing out these Pentagon papers to the communists.

That's the parallel argument…
----------
OLBERMANN: Two years ago, when you were writing your book “Worse Than Watergate,” you entitled a chapter “Scandals or Worse,” and you listed 11 specific areas where trouble might be brewing. And then you wrote less specifically about two other areas of concern.

Let me just review those 13 points, if you will, quickly here. One, character issues would meet Mr. Bush's past conduct, service record, and what not. Two, his prior business conduct, how to get a company and your own ball club without really trying or paying. Number three, whether or not the vice president had been truthful about his own health. And number four, Mr. Cheney's past business conduct. Hello, Halliburton.

Five, the possibility of civil rights violations in keeping protesters out of the Bush and Cheney events. Six, the president's executive order dismantling the Presidential records Act. Seven, those pesky little national energy policy development meetings that Mr. Cheney had chaired. Eight, the president's effort to prevent a 9/11 commission.
Nine, the failure to update the continuity-of-government plan. Ten, the possible misleading of Congress about Iraq. Eleven, the leaking of Valerie Plame's name by the White House.

And then, as I said, less formally, 12, what you quoted Orin Gross (ph) as saying, “Terrorism presents its real threat in provoking democratic regimes to embrace and employ authoritarian measures.” Sounds kind of like a forecast of this NSA spying story.

And lastly in this group here, efforts by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney to expand the powers of the presidency.

I'm gathering that, two years later, you'd probably say we should be watching numbers 10 through 13 most closely. Or is there something new on the list?

DEAN: I think 10 through 13 would be a good place to start. And I think if, for example, the composition of the Congress changes in the House or the Senate in 2006, it's going to be Katy, bar the door. This administration has an awful lot of things they're going to have to explain.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10626716/

All I can say is we need to get balance back in Washington, so get yourself and others out to the polls to elect more Democrats in 2006.

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is an interesting take from conservative columnist Steve Chapman
with the Chicago Tribune.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/premium/printedition/Sunday/perspective/chi-0512250256dec25,1,4979840.column?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably illegal monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people overseas again raises the question: Why?

The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone.

He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. But we know that can't be true. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the administration didn't ask for a revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such wiretaps because Congress--a Republican Congress, mind you--wouldn't have agreed. So the administration decided: Who needs Congress?

What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can't be bothered to earn it.

An excellent piece, he also gives other examples of wanting power for the sake of power.

 

[Skyhunter]

Well as I mentioned in the beginning of this thread, I think that bush is spying on reporters. Here is the first hint that that may be the case.

Was the NSA listening?

Does NBC's Andrea Mitchell know something about the Bush administration's domestic spying program that the rest of us don't? As AMERICAblog's John Aravosis notes, Mitchell put a question to the New York Times' James Risen Tuesday that suggests that she might.

In an interview with Risen, Mitchell asked if he had any information suggesting that the National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour. Risen said he hadn't heard that. Has Mitchell heard something to that effect, or was she just using Amanpour's name as the example of what might have gone wrong with the spying program?

We don't know the answer to that, and neither does Aravosis. But as Aravosis notes, the implications of tapping Amanpour's phone lines could be enormous. There's the chilling thought that government officials might be listening in on the conversations of a reporter, and then there's this: Amanpour's husband, who like any husband might have had occasion to use his wife's phone, happens to be Jamie Rubin, the former Clinton administration official who served as a foreign policy advisor for John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Update: As several readers note in the comments below, the exchange between Mitchell and Risen about Amanpour has rather mysteriously disappeared from the transcript of the interview posted on the MSNBC Web site. If MSNBC has an explanation for why Mitchell's question and Risen's answer have disappeared, we'd sure like to hear it. Did Mitchell not ask the question -- that seems unlikely, doesn't it? -- or does someone at MSNBC just wish she hadn't?

-- Tim Grieve

This just keeps getting more and more interesting.

A net gain of fifteen House seats and we can get subpoena power and find out what is really going on with the Bush/Cheney cabal.

 

[BobG]

Well as I mentioned in the beginning of this thread, I think that bush is spying on reporters. Here is the first hint that that may be the case.

We don't know the answer to that, and neither does Aravosis. But as Aravosis notes, the implications of tapping Amanpour's phone lines could be enormous. There's the chilling thought that government officials might be listening in on the conversations of a reporter, and then there's this: Amanpour's husband, who like any husband might have had occasion to use his wife's phone, happens to be Jamie Rubin, the former Clinton administration official who served as a foreign policy advisor for John Kerry's presidential campaign.

This just keeps getting more and more interesting.
A net gain of fifteen House seats and we can get subpoena power and find out what is really going on with the Bush/Cheney cabal.

This kind of thing is the most bothersome part of allowing anyone to eavesdrop or snoop into anyone's business without a warrant.

The argument that a private citizen has nothing to fear from surveillance as long as they have nothing to hide may be true, but monitoring of political opponents or of reporters that might put out unfavorable stories goes beyond infringing on the rights of a private citizen. These are the kind of things that affect the political direction of the country.

The result is a serious dampening of democracy, especially in the current climate where Republicans and Democrats are practically at war with each other. It's insanity to think either party should have access to these kinds of tools without some close supervision by a neutral party (presumably the judiciary).

 

[Skyhunter]

The result is a serious dampening of democracy, especially in the current climate where Republicans and Democrats are practically at war with each other. It's insanity to think either party should have access to these kinds of tools without some close supervision by a neutral party (presumably the judiciary).

I still have not heard an argument yet as to why the secret FISA courts should not be petitioned for warrants. What do they not want the judges to know?

It is quite obvious that Bush broke the law. The law that he took an oath to uphold.

 

[SOS2008]

I still have not heard an argument yet as to why the secret FISA courts should not be petitioned for warrants.

We haven’t and won’t because there is absolutely no excuse for this.

WASHINGTON — The nonpartisan research arm of Congress on Friday questioned the legal foundation of President Bush's decision to order eavesdropping on Americans without court warrants.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002725671_spying07.html

What do they not want the judges to know?

Bush authorized the eavesdropping operation after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He's said that it's limited to tracking Americans who are suspected of belonging to or aiding al-Qaida or its allies.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002725671_spying07.html

I understand something like an average of 500 calls a day are monitored. How can there be that many Al Qaida terrorists communicating with U.S. citizens on a daily basis? They aren’t.

NEW YORK - The volume of information gathered from telephone and Internet communications by the National Security Agency without court-approved warrants was much larger than the White House has acknowledged… the NSA technicians combed large amounts of phone and Internet traffic seeking patterns pointing to terrorism suspects.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10592932/

They also didn’t want courts/judges to know about this:

On December 14, NBC Nightly News revealed the existence of a hitherto secret 400-page Defense Department document listing more than 1,500 "suspicious incidents" that occurred during the pervious ten months. Among those incidents was a meeting by activists at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth , Florida , to plan a protest against military recruiting at local high schools. Other "suspicious incidents" include an anti-war protest in Los Angeles featuring an effigy of the President and a December 2004 meeting to plan a protest against military recruiters in Boston.

…Heavily-censored documents obtained by the ACLU through a Freedom of Information Act request has revealed a pattern of spying by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces on anti-war groups and others that work on environmental issues, animal rights and poverty relief. Groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have been labeled "domestic terrorists" in FBI files.

http://www.aclu-mass.org/update/

And people aren’t worried about how the term “terrorist” is thrown around? Not to mention UN officials and diplomats under constant surveillance.

It is quite obvious that Bush broke the law. The law that he took an oath to uphold.

In an article printed Friday on the op-ed page of The Washington Post, Daschle… wrote that Congress explicitly denied a White House request for war-making authority in the United States.

"This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas ... but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens," Daschle wrote.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/23/politics/main1165139.shtml

It is obvious the Bush administration knew it was illegal or they would not have made such attempts to get the authorization legally, and that they knowingly placed themselves above the law just the same. In further cover-up:

Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller had been summoned to the Oval Office by the President on December 6 in an effort to stave off publication. Once the piece was published, Bush, Cheney, Rice and other administration officials launched an aggressive offensive attacking the messenger - "Our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies and endangers our country," Bush declared in a December 17 radio address.

http://www.aclu-mass.org/update/

Aside from confusing “whistleblower” with treason, the sad irony is our civil liberties are being compromised for nothing. The huge amount of data collected is impossible to search properly, and more importantly terrorists have known their communications are monitored so have long since found other ways to communicate undetected.

"September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to do so to ourselves.” — From US political counselor at the United States Embassy in Athens, Greece, John Brady Kiesling’s letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Feb. 24, 2003. Kiesling was a career diplomat who had served in United States embassies for nearly 20 years, from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

The people who still defend/support the Bush administration are off their rock.

 

[BobG]

NEW YORK - The volume of information gathered from telephone and Internet communications by the National Security Agency without court-approved warrants was much larger than the White House has acknowledged… the NSA technicians combed large amounts of phone and Internet traffic seeking patterns pointing to terrorism suspects.

Bulk mining of communications for 'suspicious patterns' has to be what the White House is bypassing the FISA court for. How do you get a warrant for random searches when you don't even know who you'll be searching yet?

The 'threat' isn't big enough to warrant this kind of reaction. However, given the emotional reaction to 9/11, no government leader would want to face the probable reaction of the public towards a government leader that didn't take advantage of every tool available to them if another terrorist attack occurred. I doubt any politician could imagine themselves explaining "I was busy protecting Americans' civil liberties" when asked what they were doing to prevent another 9/11.

Terrorism works exactly because it does cause a terror far out of proportion to its actual damage. (In fact, if terrorist groups flew planes into populated cities once a month, their 'real' threat would rise large enough for you to be as terrified of a terrorist attack as you are driving your car).

The proper response to 9/11 would have been to invade Afghanistan to debilitate al-Qaida, taking out the Taliban if they stood in the way, then leave the country once the job was done. Would al-Qaida or some other terrorist group re-established themselves in Afghanistan or another country with almost no government control? Of course. And we would have to mount another invasion.

I don't think you can ever eliminate terrorist groups completely, but you could eventually establish the idea that association with or protection of any terrorist group guarantees elimination of the 'enablers'. Without a stable base of operations, none of these terrorist groups can mount more than small scale attacks.

While small scale terrorist attacks are a problem, they aren't a big enough problem to warrant giving up your civil liberties for.

 

[Skyhunter]

Bulk mining of communications for 'suspicious patterns' has to be what the White House is bypassing the FISA court for. How do you get a warrant for random searches when you don't even know who you'll be searching yet?
The 'threat' isn't big enough to warrant this kind of reaction. However, given the emotional reaction to 9/11, no government leader would want to face the probable reaction of the public towards a government leader that didn't take advantage of every tool available to them if another terrorist attack occurred. I doubt any politician could imagine themselves explaining "I was busy protecting Americans' civil liberties" when asked what they were doing to prevent another 9/11.
Terrorism works exactly because it does cause a terror far out of proportion to its actual damage. (In fact, if terrorist groups flew planes into populated cities once a month, their 'real' threat would rise large enough for you to be as terrified of a terrorist attack as you are driving your car).
The proper response to 9/11 would have been to invade Afghanistan to debilitate al-Qaida, taking out the Taliban if they stood in the way, then leave the country once the job was done. Would al-Qaida or some other terrorist group re-established themselves in Afghanistan or another country with almost no government control? Of course. And we would have to mount another invasion.
I don't think you can ever eliminate terrorist groups completely, but you could eventually establish the idea that association with or protection of any terrorist group guarantees elimination of the 'enablers'. Without a stable base of operations, none of these terrorist groups can mount more than small scale attacks.
While small scale terrorist attacks are a problem, they aren't a big enough problem to warrant giving up your civil liberties for.

I don't believe we know yet how and for what reasons Bush was circumventing the FISA courts. I agree that data mining was probably (hopefully) a big part of it. I think it goes beyond that though, and if congress will do it's duty and provide oversight we might learn more. We will not learn everything, much of the evidence, recordings etc have already been disposed of.

I agree about Afghanistan, and destroying the terrorist organizations. (I wish Bush would do the same.) I think that terrorism could be eliminated, but it requires that humanity evolve, and that starts with the affluent working toward providing for the self maintenance needs of all humans. When people are not constantly exposed and subjected to injustice, they are far less likely to lash out violently in desperation.

Corporatism, and the exploitation of people and resources for profit is not the system that will bring about this spiritual leap in human consciousness. I tend to agree with Smurf, that anarchism is a better ideology for an enlightened world. We have the technology, the wealth and the resources. All we lack is the political will.

 

[SOS2008]

However, given the emotional reaction to 9/11, no government leader would want to face the probable reaction of the public towards a government leader that didn't take advantage of every tool available to them if another terrorist attack occurred.

I think we can all appreciate this predicament… Since many of us asked this very question regarding prior attacks, most notably 9-11. In that case the intelligence was made available--without breaking the law--but was not acted upon appropriately. Also, I would have more leniencies toward Bush’s claims that he is protecting our national security if other more obvious efforts were being made such as border control.

Then it comes down to this question:

…in addition to questions about the legality of the program, another question certain to be asked by Congress is what the secret surveillance accomplished.

So far the White House has offered only one conflicting example (video), Stewart reports. That was the case of Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver and naturalized U.S. citizen, who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to cut down the Brooklyn bridge with a blowtorch. The NSA spy program was necessary because it "helped uncover" the Faris plot, the White House told The New York Times, which broke the surveillance story. But last summer the president gave credit for the Faris case to the Patriot Act, which does require court approval for wiretaps.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/23/politics/main1165139_page2.shtml

And returning to the points made in my earlier post above:

If we only "connect the dots" from diverse sources we can catch people before they have a time to act. Recent history indicates that this has not worked well. We have had attacks in Spain, the UK, Indonesia and several other places just in the past year or two. None of these impending attacks was uncovered. Why not?

Here we get into the awful truth of all data mining and pattern recognition techniques. ...In addition they [terrorists] will use a made up vocabulary to communicate, hence no key words.*

The next problem with finding patterns of unknown activists is the volume of material that must be scanned. The 9/11 commission stressed the fact that there were links in the gathered data which showed connections between the aircraft hijackers. They assumed that the failure to make the connections was do to poor management, or "barriers" between intelligence agencies, or some other organizational failing. In point of fact the real reason was that there is just too much information and finding the parts that are significant is essentially impossible.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/27/152645/75

*And terrorists use other tactics such as posting messages in a website, for example. This dragnet surveillance isn’t thwarting terrorists, and isn’t even inconveniencing them in any significant way.

What it has been doing is causing even mainstream sites/blogs to spell Iraq as Iraw or Irac to avoid being monitored. I personally avoid subject headings with key words when I send emails. Good Lord, think what all this has come to. This is far beyond Nixon.

 

[edward]

So far in this thread we have primarily been concerned with NSA doing a lot of data mining on Americans who supposedly are communicating with foreign entities.

In the meantime the CIA, FBI, military and Homeland security are probably data mining on a much grander scale domestically. Still my biggest concern is that with all of that info floating around so many agencies, they are going to stumble over it.

There is no real guarantee that this greatly expanded security gathering conglomerate is going to be any less disfunctional than preceding agencies were when they bungled 911, even though a Phoenix FBI agent handed them a smoking gun.

 

[Astronuc]

Gore's Challenge to Congress and the Media

The issue of domestic syping and the possiblity of the president exceeding constitutional authority were the subject of Al Gore's address on Martin Luther King Day.

Geez, if only Gore had presented himself that way in 2000, perhaps the country would not be so bad off.

Gore's remarks have already created a firestorm on the right, with the Republican National Committee decrying the speech as a diatribe "laden with inaccuracies and anger."

But don't settle for the RNC spin, nor for that of its media acolytes.

Gore's speech, while surely controversial, contained a dramatic and significant critique not merely of the Bush administration's wrongdoing but of the failure of Congress and major media to expose and challenge abuses of power.

What was said in Washington on Monday mattered. Indeed, it mattered so much that the the spin machine of the president's party is hard at work seeking to mischaracterize the former vice president's remarks -- remarks that bluntly criticized both Republicans and Democrats.

Here is a transcript of what Al Gore had to say:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060117/cm_thenation/150069_1