Time repeats administration claim that NSA program targets those with "known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations"
SUMMARY: In a May 5 online article, Time magazine reporters Mike Allen and Timothy J. Burger wrote that the Bush administration's controversial warrantless domestic surveillance program targets domestic phone calls "if one of the parties has known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations." In fact, media reports have revealed that the NSA has monitored the communications of thousands of people with no relationship to Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations.
In a May 5 online article, Time magazine reporters Mike Allen and Timothy J. Burger wrote that the Bush administration's controversial warrantless domestic surveillance program targets domestic phone calls "if one of the parties has known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations." In fact, media reports have revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) has not limited its wiretaps to such people, but instead has monitored the communications of thousands of people with no relationship to Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations.
As Media Matters for America noted (here and here), media reports about the warrantless surveillance program contradict the notion that it is limited to suspects with "known links" to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as the Time article suggests. A February 5 Washington Post report quoting "current and former government officials" said that "[i]ntelligence 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 New York Times similarly reported on January 17 that "[m]ore than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials," some of whom knew of the domestic spying program, "said the torrent of tips [from NSA wiretapping] led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive." As the Post also reported, out of the thousands of Americans whose communications have been monitored by the NSA over the past few years, fewer than 10 a year have aroused enough suspicion that federal courts granted permission for monitoring of their purely domestic communications.
From a May 5 Time.com article about the resignation of former CIA director Porter J. Goss and his replacement, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, former deputy director of national intelligence and former head of the NSA:
It was Hayden who appeared in the White House briefing room in December to defend a highly classified National Security Agency program that includes interception of domestic phone calls and e-mail messages without warrants if one of the parties has known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Hayden said at the National Press Club in January: "It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about. This is targeted and focused."
When the NSA surveillance program targets those with "known links to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations," what organizations are they referring to - the Quakers?
Don't forget all the controversy over whether "reasonable suspicion" of terrorist links is sufficient justification for a search - a far cry from "known links."
The least these authors could have done at Time is to note the difference between known links and suspected links, the fact that numerous sources have reported far broader searching than that touted by the administration, and that Haden remains unwilling to specifically deny that the program has been used to target opponents of Bush, preferring to say they lack the authority and the time, as MMFA points out in another item today.
But they won't. Remember, this is the same Magazine that came out in January and said Bush had put the entire issue "to bed." Time Warner CEO's want to continue making their hundreds of millions with the least possible taxation possible while they are unfettered in their continued absorption of subsidiary corporations and in their control of media, including the internet.
"We only target connections to Al Qaeda."
"How do we know that?"
"Because we targeted them."
THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT.
Now for the checks and balances:
"How do we KNOW you aren't abusing this self-imposed guideline?"
"Because we TELL you we don't."
"Couldn't you get a secret warrant from FISA?"
"That would be too much trouble. It's better if you just TRUST us."
"You are sworn to protect the Constitution. How can you be trusted if you claim you must violate the Constitution to do your job?"
"Because we are good, and terrorists are bad."
"How do we KNOW what you're doing is good?"
"It's GOOD, because WE are doing it."
Back to circular reasoning ...
i am getting extremely sick of reading stuff like this. everytime i open the paper or turn on the t.v. it is more republican apologists or lies. i feel ill.
This issue is so easy to demogogue that opponents have to be very careful. It depresses me that so many people will believe the "Dems don't want to spy on Al Qaeda" canard.
between Al Qaeda and the Quakers is the letter Q.
...oh, and the letters a and e.