Denouncing domestic spying reports, Kondracke equated NSA program with World War II code-breaking, radar
SUMMARY: On Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke asserted that the disclosure of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program to The New York Times "is the equivalent of telling the newspapers that ... we've broken the Japanese codes or, hey, we've discovered radar, we can see enemy planes."
During the "All Star Panel" segment of the April 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke asserted that the disclosure of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program to The New York Times "is the equivalent of telling the newspapers that ... we've broken the Japanese codes or, hey, we've discovered radar, we can see enemy planes." But Kondracke's equivalence rested on two assumptions for which Kondracke provided no support: that those engaged in terrorist activities did not already have reason to believe that their communications were being monitored, and that the warrantless domestic surveillance program was effective before the New York Times report. Both assumptions are dubious at best.
In December 2005, New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau first revealed that shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor the communications of United States persons without obtaining a warrant. The program is an apparent violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which normally requires a warrant for such surveillance.
Referring to Risen, Lichtblau, and Washington Post reporter Dana Priest -- who revealed the CIA's use of secret interrogation sites overseas -- CNN political analyst William Bennett said on April 18: "I think what they did is worthy of jail." All three won Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting. Discussing Bennett's comments, Kondracke said on Special Report that while he did not think the reporters should be imprisoned, "the people who leaked the story should go to jail, especially in the case of the NSA spying case." Kondracke added: "If I were the editor of The New York Times, I would be ashamed of myself for publishing the story about the NSA spying."
Kondracke's assertion that the disclosure of the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program is the "equivalent" of telling reporters about the breaking of codes or the use of radar relies on the claim -- advanced by members of the Bush administration -- that potential terrorists would not have otherwise suspected that their communications were under surveillance. The new information revealed by the Times was not that the United States spies on terrorist suspects but, rather, that the Bush administration has undertaken such surveillance without obtaining warrants.
As Media Matters for America has noted, on the February 12 broadcast of ABC's This Week, Washington Post columnist George F. Will dismissed as "peculiar" the claim that the program's disclosure "tip[ped] off" enemies of the United States to the possibility that they were under surveillance:
WILL: I want to go back to the NSA thing. The administration says talking about this tips off the enemy. Now, the idea that our enemies think that the most technologically sophisticated nation in the world isn't using all its advantages to eavesdrop on them is peculiar. In 1978, we passed FISA. That alerted them, if any alerting was needed, that we were indeed listening in, passing the Patriot Act alerted them to what we were going to do and were going to not do. What I do not understand in this whole bizarre week we just had, George, our arguing about the NSA surveillance, the administration saying desperately important to pass the Patriot Act.
A February 6 exchange between Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the surveillance program also cast doubt on the claim that the program was damaged by media reports:
BIDEN: General, how has this revelation damaged the program? I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaeda folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls. I mean, I'm a little confused. How did it damage this?
GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I'm just the lawyer. And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true -- you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance. But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget. And you're amazed at some of the communications that exist. And so when you keep sticking it in their face that we're involved in some kind of surveillance, even if it's unclear in these stories, it can't help but make a difference, I think.
BIDEN: Well, I hope you and my distinguished friend from Alabama are right, that they're that stupid and naive because we're much better off if that's the case. I got the impression from the work I've done in this area that they're pretty darn sophisticated; they pretty well know. It's a little like when we talk about -- when I say you all haven't -- not you, personally -- the administration has done very little for rail security. They've done virtually nothing and people say, oh, my Lord, don't tell them; don't tell them there's vulnerabilities in the rail system. They'll know to use terror. Don't tell them that that tunnel was built in 1860 and there's no lighting, no ventilation. I mean, I hope they're that stupid.
In addition, Kondracke's equivalence relied on the disputed claim that the domestic surveillance program has been effective in identifying terrorism suspects and, therefore, that the program's disclosure could have damaged national security. But as Media Matters has noted, news reports suggest otherwise. The Washington Post reported on February 5 that according to "current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use," intelligence officers used the program to eavesdrop "on thousands of Americans in overseas calls" but "dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat."
In addition, a January 17 New York Times article reported that, according to "current and former [FBI] officials," "virtually all" of the tips provided by the NSA to the FBI under the surveillance program "led to dead ends or innocent Americans."
Despite Kondracke's claim of "equivalen[ce]," the reported ineffectiveness of the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance contrasts sharply with the use of code-breaking and radar during World War II.
According to the NSA's own website, the breaking of Japan's "JN-25" codes led to the American victory at the crucial battle of Midway, "the turning point in the Pacific":
[Cpt. Joseph] Rochefort believed AF referred to Midway. With the approval of RADM [Chester] Nimitz, instructions were given to the Marines on Midway to send a plaintext message complaining about the lack of fresh water. Two days later, 12 May 1942, a JN-25 message was decoded stating: "AF is short of water."
Knowing Midway would be attacked, the U.S. Navy and Marines were able to adjust their forces and combat the attack head on. Although the battle raged for portions of three days, and significant numbers of U.S. and Japanese lives were lost, the Americans defeated the Japanese fleet.
Similarly, the World War II Multimedia Database notes that the introduction of widespread radar use during the Battle of Britain gave the British a significant advantage:
The Battle of Britain marked the first use of radar on a widespread scale in warfare. It allowed RAF [Britain's Royal Air Force] fighter Command's three main southern air groups to wait on the ground for incoming attacks, and then leap into the fray when the bombers were sighted on radar.
The Germans, who had not developed radar to the same level as the British, could not understand why their losses were mounting over the Channel until their intelligence identified the radar network installations.
From the April 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: Those are the two stories that won the Pulitzer -- two of the main Pulitzer Prizes this year. Mr. Bennett has a strong opinion. Mr. Kondracke, your thoughts.
KONDRACKE: Well, I don't think they're going to -- ought to go to jail for what they did. But the people who leaked the story should go to jail, especially in the case of the NSA spying case. This is the equivalent of telling the newspapers that we've discovered that -- we've broken the Japanese codes or, hey, we've discovered radar, we can see enemy planes, you know. That's the kind of secret in wartime that ought not to be let out, it seems to me.
HUME: So you don't approve of the stories being published?
KONDRACKE: If I were the editor of The New York Times, I would be ashamed of myself for publishing the story about the NSA spying. And in fact, they didn't for a year. It was only when one of the -- James Risen was going to come out with his book that The New York Times actually published it.
Just take a look at the ECHELON article in Wikipedia : USA have been listening for a very very long time ; and not only to fight their enemies... To win contracts too... Just two snippets : "In May 2001, the European Parliament produced a report on ECHELON which, amongst other things, recommended that citizens of member states routinely use cryptography in their communications to protect their privacy" ; "European aerospace company Airbus lost a $6 billion contract with Saudi Arabia after the NSA reported that Airbus officials had been bribing Saudi officials to secure the contract. " So the Times did revealed that the NSA was listening to US Citizen without a warrant, not that the NSA was listening to terrorists (or others enemies or partners) : but they report what is useful to their propaganda...
I have been warning people about echelon for years and people thought I was nuts. I have been warning for years about Bush's Fascist Regime's goals. Does anyone remember his comment "It would sure be a lot easier to get things done if this was a dictatorship -as long as I was the dictator." Was this meant as a joke or was this a Freudian slip of his true intentions.
However the Echelon network has been around for a long time and in part the FISA laws were brought into play as a result of some nefarious uses of Echelon.
Who indeed won the cold war???
...Or whatever Quayle said. It certainly applies to Kondrake, who was on Nixon's enemies list, proud of it, and apparently somewhat miffed he made only the second-string list.
I had to look it up...
"What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true that is." - Dan Quayle
Possibly illegal (trying to play nice) wire tapping of civilians (not terorists) compared to picking up battle field communications and radar I have never heard of such a monkeyed up line of thought. My logic professor in college would have killed himself had one of his students made that assertion, after passing his class.
Second, a brief disagreement with the historical premise that radar was a great advantage in the Battlte of Britain. More likely it was a small tactical advantage at best. However, it exploited a bigger weakness as it allowed more British fighters in the air and therefore a greater chance that German fighters would have to engage in a dogfight, the smaller supply of gas a German fighter would have compared to the British aircraft. Not to insult the RAF, as they are definitely the heroes of the day, but you have 1/2 a tank of gas and have a way to go before getting home and I am on "F" and already at home, who more likely to screw up in a life or death situtation?
So I guess Kondrake is right it is like WWII, it amounts to gas and who has the biggest supply.
Glackey, Kondrake was on Nixon enemies' list? Well, I guess no one is all bad. Take that any way you like, it will still be right.
When I wrote that yesterday I was thinking of the ways 35 years in Washington could change some people. When he arrived, he was working for the Chicago Sun-Times, which if not far left wing was considerably more liberal than even the toned down (compared to McCormack's day) Chicago Tribune.
But that misses the true irony, which shouldn't have anything to do with the left/right spectrum (but unfortunately does). Nixon's enemies list was all ABOUT illegal wiretaps. Well, not totally--the first, or 'A' list, included the group of people on whom he planned to seek revenge after the '72 elections--but both lists included those considered 'leakees' and whose telephone conversations might confirm the identities of those tentatively identified as 'leakers'.
I am not sure, but I think both Jack Anderson and his then-assistant Bret Hume were also on the lists.
Perhaps Hume was not important enough. You can find the 'expanded' version of the list, and the memos, all of which are chilling, at:
[link to web.archive.org]
True enough that's its significance in the Battle of Britain is almost always overblown. However, at least it was a positive contributing factor and not a waste of resources and a threat to liberty.
That the same surveillance CANNOT be done in secret, but LEGALLY?
This is an ABSOLUTELY FALSE assumption.
NOBODY says to quit surveilling, and NOBODY wants to broadcast state secrets. The problem is, Bush is doing it without ANY oversight, outside the LAW, and in violation of our Constitution.
Kondrake, like all rightwingers, wishes to battle STRAW MEN, because they cannot answer the core issue: Why can't the president follow the LAW?
It amazes me that so few media types bring that up. At the rate Bush is going, the Constitution is rapidly becoming extraneous.
I am printing it out--the Archives has a convenient site with various forms and all the amendments--and this afternoon I am going to send both Bush and Gonzales letters that say something like "You may not have read the United States Constitution recently. Here is a copy for your convenience."
Actually, I'd be surprised if Bush ever had read it completely (aside from his actions, his reading matter apparently is closer to 'the Very Hungry Caterpillar' than heavier tomes.)
What an excellent idea! Simple and to the point.
I wonder if someone like MoveOn.org would sponsor a form letter and the Consitution on there site for people to print and sign...and flood Bush and Gonzo with them.
I thought of suggesting it to Moveon.org but I decided that it will have more impact as a standalone effort that is not one of dozens of Moveon petitions--and if any attention it garners can't be scoffed away as a "partisan attack". Besides, a flood of emails with constitutional attachments wouldn't be the same.
If there's anything to this idea, it's simplicity. I think the less verbage in the letter, the more effective--just individuals sending the Constitution to those who should read it. We could articulate dozens if not hundreds of points in a cover letter, but why? The Constitution says it all.
(It's all because the midwestern mumps epidemic has drifted here to northern Wisconsin. For the last couple of days every convoluted justification, spin, explanation, and talking point has seemed especially surreal. They all provoked the same mumpish response: I started telling those voices on tv to just shut up and read the Constitution. I am a little proud of the "here is a copy for your convenience" sentence, but that may just be the mumps.)
I'm thinking about putting up a web site to do this but have been wondering whether it was a great idea...or the mumps.
Kondracke is no right winger! He is something of a new democrat,but he is soft .He sounds right wind for reasons Ido not know at times I think. Joe Conason is the sort of liberal who is tough against lies.