Wash. Post said Bush wiretapping program covered calls where "one party had been tied to al-Qaeda"
A July 30 Washington Post article asserted as fact that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program -- which the article referred to as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" -- "monitor[ed] telephone calls between the United States and overseas in which one party had been tied to al-Qaeda." However, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted (here, here, here, and here), several news articles in 2006 reported that the warrantless eavesdropping program was not limited to calls in which one party was "tied to al-Qaeda," but that it also ensnared thousands of Americans with no ties to any terrorist group. For instance, on November 25, 2006, The New York Times reported that "government officials involved" in the wiretapping program "have said that it has often led to dead ends and to people with no clear links to terrorism."
The July 30 Post article, about the numerous examples in which critics say Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales may have misled Congress, stated that the administration "had been conducting a secret wiretapping program for more than three years without court oversight, possibly in conflict with federal intelligence laws." It then described the program again while discussing a specific example of Gonzales' allegedly misleading testimony:
Democrats and some experts on the use of language say that Gonzales's gaffes are too numerous and consistent to be chalked up to misunderstandings. In most instances, his answers, or his refusals to answer, have served to obscure events that would be damaging to the administration, Gonzales or Bush.
One example involves the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which allowed the National Security Agency to monitor telephone calls between the United States and overseas in which one party had been tied to al-Qaeda. Gonzales has testified repeatedly that there was never "serious disagreement" among administration officials about the program and that an unusual visit by Gonzales to the hospital bed of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was focused on "other intelligence activities."
However, according to a February 5, 2006, Washington Post article, "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." Discussing the number of Americans who have had their conversations recorded or their emails read by intelligence analysts without court authority over the previous four years, the Post reported: "Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000." Of those subject to warrantless wiretaps, "[f]ewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls." The Post article also reported that, according to anonymous "officials," "the prevalence of false leads is especially pronounced when U.S. citizens or residents are surveilled."
Likewise, a January 17, 2006, New York Times article reported 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 [mostly from the NSA program] 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." According to the article, "current and former officials" said that "virtually all" of those tips "led to dead ends or innocent Americans."
I hate to give them the benefit of the doubt but, I guess if an international telephone number was known or suspected to be an Al Q member or what ever they call themselves, and they called Joe's Plumbing in the US to get a quote on some used pipe Joe had advertised on Craig's list, then maybe some US intelligence agent listened in to a few phone calls, opened some of Joe's mail , hijacked some emails and determined that Joe is not worth pursuing as a terrorist, then one could say that the statement is true: ie the international person was suspected of Al Q connections, but the American citizen they contacted was an innocent.
I hate to give them the benefit of the doubt
Stop there...think about it...WMDs...promises to fire anyone involved in the leak...mission accomplished...torture...extraordnary renditions...is it really wise to give this Administration the benefit of the doubt on anything?
Regardless, the whole un warranted wiretapping, Gonzo lying about, Bush trying to convince me it's necessary, that is all wrong and disgracefull for America. Why, one would have to hate America just to propose such an idea. It is very disturbing that not one of Bush's senior advisers put the kebosh on this or resigned in protest.
Point blank warrantless wire tappings is Unconstitutional.
When you have the RNC and White House conspire to circumvent the record keeping laws by using the RNC mail server combined with TSP and data mining and voter caging tactics. It doesn't make any America sit easy with this most corrupt administration in United States history.
Just as Reagan will never escape the Iran Contra scandal and Bush Sr will never escape his corruption in stopping the Iran Contra investigation by pardoning the criminals involved Bush Jr will never escape the obvious criminality of his actions.
This current administration is more dangerous than the terrorists. All the terrorists can do is damage via some act of violence. These Conservative Republicans on the other hand can do even greater damage by dismantling everthing the American Revolution fought for.
"This current administration is more dangerous than the terrorists"
And statements like that is why no one takes the far left seriously. That statement is simply absurd. Programs like the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretapping program, and tough interrogations have protected you from being killed in a terrorist attack. If you had your way we would have terrorist attacks unabated. And until the NSA Program is actually declared illegal by the courts, your statement is baseless. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out the case.
"Programs like the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretapping program, and tough interrogations have protected you from being killed in a terrorist attack."
I'd love to see you prove that.
And statements like YOURS is why no one in their right mind takes the far right seriously about, well, virtually anything. First you have no way whatsoever of knowing that anything EVER threatened him that anything Bush has done has had ANY effect on his safety. You just make the baseless assertion which even you have to know is nothing more than a baseless assertion only because of its propaganda value. Nothing else in the equation means anything to you. Second IF all Bush was doing was listening in to al Queda calls then exactly WHAT would be the problem getting a FISA warrant? Do you seriously believe there is a FISA judge alive that would turn down FISA requests up to 72 hrs AFTER the tap if one of the parties could be linked in any way to al Queda? The only reason to keep the FISA oversight out of the equation is they didnt want anyone to know WHO specifically they were wiretapping.
So do you agree with Harlequin's statement that the current administration is more dangerous than the terrorists? Or do you realize that such extremism only hurts your side?
Gee is that up to you? No it isnt. His point, which he made clear is that terrorists can kill us but cannot take our freedom only an fearmongering Administration can do that and yes I agree. Of course when conservatives just hear what they want and tune the rest out or are stuck in the simplistic Manichean mindset of black and white nuance just goes WHOOOOSH right over their heads. He didnt say they were as evil as terrorists. Which is what you seemed to hear. At any rate why should I be questioned about HIS statement? YOURS was ludicrous and you cannot possibly support it so look to the beam in your OWN eye before you continue to snivel about the mote in your nieghbors
SOLON:
For YEARS, we have been told that if we do not support the President's every action, that we must be "with the terrorists". That if we even QUESTION the Administration about the war or terrorism, we are giving "aid and comfort to the enemy."
Without any doubt or wiggle room, the Republicans in this Administration equate Democrats and Liberals with terrorists. There can be no other possible conclusion.
So, can Democrats be wiretapped? The case has been made over and over ... of COURSE they can!
Combine this with the White House's unilateral power to declare ANYONE an "enemy combattant" ... without proof, evidence, any charges, or citation of any kind ... this brings out the horrifying reality that we now have in power an unaccountable dictatorship which is hostile to over HALF this nation's population, and is fully capable of casting the Constitution aside and instead employing police state tactics.
Al Qaeda can kill people and blow up buildings. Al Qaeda CANNOT undermine our nation's very foundations, our rights, our freedoms, our Constitution. Only corrupt power from within can do THAT ... if we ALLOW it to.
Does this make the Bush Administration "more dangerous" than Al Qaeda? Damn right it does!!!!!
"Without any doubt or wiggle room, the Republicans in this Administration equate Democrats and Liberals with terrorists. There can be no other possible conclusion"
No, we just point out how ridiculous some on the far left are when they make ludicrous claims like the Bush administration is more dangerous than the terrorists. As long as the Democrats keep catering to this crowd, they'll never win the presidency. Most Americans reject such extremism, even though they're against the War in Iraq. But such extreme rhetoric only hurts your side with independents and even mainstream Democrats. And no, Democrats aren't being wiretapped. That's just ridiculous. Every person in the U.S who has been wiretapped are people who have called someone overseas in a country like Iraq or Saudi Arabia with a name like Abu-Al-Zihara and the like. So unless you're calling some Muslim terrorists in some middle eastern country, you don't have anything to worry about.
Rino, you've been going down the road this whole thread and you finally hit home with your last comment. The views you have expressed are unquestionably anti-American and are exactly what the Constitution protects us against, namely sheepish masses blindly following a authoritarian leader who promises safety and security while silently taking away liberties.
You have no proof that anything you just said is true. Bush has claimed executive privilege for the details of the program, so there is no evidence of who they wiretapped. Your assertation that Daddy would never do anything wrong does not count as proof. He readily admitted that he has not followed the law and did not seek warrents.
"Every person in the U.S who has been wiretapped are people who have called someone overseas in a country like Iraq or Saudi Arabia with a name like Abu-Al-Zihara and the like."
Do you oversee this program? How can you possibly pretend to be able to make that assertion? And again, if it's reasonable to wiretap these calls, then there's no need to circumvent FISA at all. You don't seem to have an argument to address that, so you throw out your completely ridiculous blanket assertion as if it were convincing to anyone but yourself.
It's very touching that you have such faith in Bush that you would think he should be trusted with such powers, but don't believe for a second that your trust is going to persuade any thinking person that they should feel the same way.
He can't make that assertion. The Bushies have already used these programs against antiwar protesters, the Texas Democrats, a strip joint and who knows who else.
"Do you oversee this program"
No, but several Democrats in the Senate have been briefed on this program from the very beginning. Rockefeller and other Democrats have overseen the program.
Do you even think before you write or form an opinion? Rockefeller was the one who wrote to the administration complaining that the program was unconstitutional, and that was the day after he was first briefed. He also has stated that the admin. refuses to give him or the committee details of the program.
So because some people were briefed, without the ability to talk publicly about it or end the program, that gives you the confidence to say that there have been no abuses?
How the hell do you figure?
You don't know how much they were told. You don't know that anyone approved, because their approval is irrelevant to the process here. You don't even know if they were told accurate details, do you?
You don't know anything, and that's the problem. In your mind, the concept that some Democrats were told something somehow guarantees that everything is above board, when there are so many variables unknown.
As usual, you twist reality to fit your beliefs, not the other way around. Come on, if you aren't a fan of Bush, why make such lame and absurd excuses for him?
"Come on, if you aren't a fan of Bush, why make such lame and absurd excuses for him"
I've stated before that I agree with him on some issues and disagree with him on other issues. This is one issue that I agree with him on. I think that this program is vital to preventing another terrorist attack. And to be completely honest, I don't care if somebody listens to my phone conversations because I don't have anything to hide. My phone conversations are pretty boring. And also, I don't know of anybody who has actually been wrongfully arrested because of this NSA program. Until that happens you can't really claim that the government has abused this program.
This is interesting, coming from the fan of the slippery slope argument. Listening in on your private conversations, even if they have absolutely no valid reason to do so, is no problem, because you have nothing to hide and it's good for national security. What about installing cameras in your house? Monitoring your web activity? Following you as you go out at night? If there's a line, why is there one? After all, you have nothing to hide, and the rationale that it's worth sacrificing your privacy for safety carries over to any of these activities.
What's more, your argument that we can't complain unless there are wrongful arrests is idiotic for two reasons;first, listening in on political opponents or journalists (and how do we know if they are?) would be an abuse even if there are no arrests. Second, the mere possibility of people having such evidence used against them is a problem in itself. Obviously, if there is a real suspect that is arrested through illegally obtained evidence, a valid court process could very well lead to any charges being thrown out on a technicality. That's clearly not good for national security. To prevent that, the system pretty much has to conform to the illegal program, which is a perversion of our entire concept of jurisprudence.
If there's a valid reason for eavesdropping on these people, then warrants and oversight should not be an issue at all. You simply have no way around that, which is what makes your great show of faith in Bush's integrity so laughably pathetic.
You're a coward.
Liberals are willing to take the risk of losing our lives to terrorists in order to protect and preserve the constitution. You, and the neocons, are willing to sacrifice the constitution and submit to a unitary executive AND allow your government officials to ignore the law in order to preserve and protect your sense of safety.
It's really pretty simple.
"Liberals are willing to take the risk of losing our lives to terrorists in order to protect and preserve the constitution"
Well at least you admit it. You would rather die than lose some of your precious "civil liberties." Talk about being selfish. You would rather our country be destroyed by terrorists than put up with a little inconvenience. I can't say that that's hardly surprising though. Democrats have always been weak when it comes to national security. And also, what civil liberties have you given up exactly because of Bush's programs?
"You would rather our country be destroyed by terrorists"--rino hunter
And you reveal your insecurity about the beauty and resilience of our democratic system. Do you really think "our country [can] be destroyed by terrorists"? I don't think they could do it in a million years militarily. Sure they can kill people and do damage, but the real damage is luring us into thinking it is okay to act like them. If we are "destroyed", it will be in that way.
How are we "acting like the terrorists?" When did we begin killing innocent women and children with suicide bombs?
"How are we "acting like the terrorists?" When did we begin killing innocent women and children with suicide bombs?"--rino hunter
Your only distinction seems to be the word "suicide". Killing innocent people is killing innocent people. What differenced does the tactic employed make?
We decided innocent people were going to die when we made the decision to start a war with Iraq. That is what happens in war. I don't think you can argue the administration didn't consider that. If they didn't, may God help us all.
We don't kill innocent women and children on purpose. That's ridiculous. The terrorists in Iraq kill innocent women and children with suicide bombs. We're trying to stop them and bring stability to the region.
What does it matter if it is on purpose or not? Dead is still dead, right? We took responsibility for that when we decided to start this war on flimsy pretenses.
"Well at least you admit it. You would rather die than lose some of your precious "civil liberties." Talk about being selfish."
Sounds kind of like the NRA.
yes, give me liberty or give me death!! once we accept the gradual dissolution of freedoms and civil liberties, we have embarked on a journey not on a slippery slope, but a journey on an vertical iceberg, coated with soap and a tail wind. Human history teaches us that humans cannot be trusted to handle great power without constant oversight.
If you're dead you won't have any civil liberties. Also, when Patrick Henry made that statement it was in the context of wanting to fight for our freedom from Great Britain. We were still ruled by Great Britain at the time and had to live by their rules. We had no liberty. That's obviously completely different than having a few government programs that don't even affect you. It amazes me how you can twist something that Henry said to make it look he would support your anarchist views.
How, exactly, is demanding that our elected officials abide by the Constitution and the laws of the land being anarchist. It seems to me that it is the polar opposite.
In my opinion we are abiding by the Constitution. Until the Supreme Court of the United States declares that the Patriot Act and/or the NSA Surveillance program is unconstitutional, your claim is simply a baseless opinion. None of Bush's anti-terror programs have been declared unconstitutional so far.
And when I referenced anarchy I was talking about the fact that many liberals place more emphasis on so called "civil liberties" than on security. Their big government attitude somehow doesn't extend to issues where our national security is on the line.
You are wrong to say his opinion is "baseless". You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.
Hey, I got it from Media Matters. They keep teaching me new stuff all the time.
I think you need to learn that lesson again. It didn't take the first few times apparently.
"His point, which he made clear is that terrorists can kill us but cannot take our freedom"
So how exactly has the Patriot Act and the NSA program taken away your freedom? How have these programs affected you personally?
Why do you argue so narrowly that such freedoms only need to affect us personally? I suppose slavery never affected me personally. Does that mean it wasn't ever a threat to freedom? I have no right then to oppose the practice on others on principle?
I suppose you think it is okay to hold people without charges or spy on citizens for no accountable reason as long as it isn't you or anyone you know personally.
It's okay to hold prisoners indefinetely as long as they aren't U.S. citizens. Foreign terrorists aren't afforded U.S. Constitutional rights. And until the government actually starts wiretapping regular conversations between regular people, I'm not going to be too worried about the NSA program. Several Democrats in the Senate were even briefed on the program, so there has been some oversight.
"It's okay to hold prisoners indefinetely as long as they aren't U.S. citizens."
Really? The Geneva Conventions don't apply?
"Foreign terrorists aren't afforded U.S. Constitutional rights."
How do you determine that they're terrorists if you "hold them indefinitely"?
"And until the government actually starts wiretapping regular conversations between regular people, I'm not going to be too worried about the NSA program."
Again, the baseless assertion. You simply have no way of backing that up.
"Several Democrats in the Senate were even briefed on the program, so there has been some oversight."
Oversight? It wasn't up for approval, there was no veto power over it. How is that "oversight"?
"How do you determine that they're terrorists if you "hold them indefinitely"
The thing is that they aren't going to be held indefinitely. We set up a military tribunal system to try the terrorists. But the Democrats even opposed that, because they want to give terrorists the opportunity to tie up the U.S. legal system with endless litigation.
Apparently, your ignorance knows no bounds. First: please produce evidence in the Constitution that its protections extend only to citizens (hint: it doesn't)
Second: It's not just Dems complaining about the "tribunals", it has also been the Supreme Court, twice.
"The thing is that they aren't going to be held indefinitely. We set up a military tribunal system to try the terrorists. But the Democrats even opposed that, because they want to give terrorists the opportunity to tie up the U.S. legal system with endless litigation."--rino hunter
I don't know nor care about Democratic opposition. The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that the Bush Administration rules were illegal.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13788.htm
The Supreme Court merely ruled that Bush couldn't set up the military tribunals unilaterally. Justice Breyer made it clear in his opinion that Congress had the power to authorize the tribunals. Congress has since done that.
If I wasn't already a jaded observer, I would be shocke that our government wanted to conduct these trials in secret and without the presumption of innocence. Say what you will about these suspects, but they should be given a fair trial. We shouldn't be in the railroad business.
The whole world should know that these men were given a fair trial. That is where this administration has lost the esteem of much of the rest of the world.
So you want to give these terrorist suspects the opportunity to tie up our legal system with endless litigation and force US to pay for their lawyers?
Why not? What is the harm in that? You demonstrate a pretty deep insecurity and/or lack of faith about our system.
You aren't trying to make the argument that the guilty don't deserve a fair trial are you? Considering your apparent fondness for circular logic, it wouldn't be surprising.
I'm saying that WE THE TAXPAYERS shouldn't be forced to pay for the lawyers of the same group of people that were responsible for 9-11. That's simply immoral in my opinion.
"I'm saying that WE THE TAXPAYERS shouldn't be forced to pay for the lawyers of the same group of people that were responsible for 9-11."--rino hunter
Don't you think that determination of guilt in that regard should be made by a court or tribunal? I mean, how do we know they are Al-Qaida unless it can be determined at a fair trial? I don't mean to brag, but I figured you would make a circular argument like you just did.
Excuse me. "Suspected terrorists."
So you are saying the US can snatch up anyone they want to anywhere in the world, hold them til whenever on little to no evidence at all? This is no longer a hypothetical statement. It is probably happening right now. You are okay with that?
I'm okay with the U.S. government holding people that we capture on the battle field. I would rather they be tried by a military tribunal than simply held indefinetely, but I don't have a problem with the government holding suspected terrorists either. We have released a few lower level terrorists from Gitmo because we didn't feel that they were a major threat to us, but every person being held at Gitmo is connected to terrorism in some way, even if it's only a distant connection. I don't lose any sleep at night worrying about how terrorists are being treated,
You are living in a fantasy world.
"I'm okay with the U.S. government holding people that we capture on the battle field. I would rather they be tried by a military tribunal than simply held indefinetely, but I don't have a problem with the government holding suspected terrorists either."--rino hunter
I don't know how many Gitmo suspects were captured on the "battlefield". I suppose that could mean nearly anywhere as this is a "global war", which could presume a global battlefield.
The real problem is that we cannot try many of these suspects because the evidence against them has either been coerced and should not be admissable in any court/tribunal or there is no evidence at all. The administration knows this and has been dragging their feet to avoid bringing these guys to trial.
"We have released a few lower level terrorists from Gitmo because we didn't feel that they were a major threat to us, but every person being held at Gitmo is connected to terrorism in some way, even if it's only a distant connection. I don't lose any sleep at night worrying about how terrorists are being treated,"--rino hunter
You have nothing to support your statement that "every person being held at Gitmo is connected to terrorism in some way". In fact there are statements from the Bush Administration's own prosecutors that contradict you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361458/
"Foreign terrorists aren't afforded U.S. Constitutional rights."--rino hunter
I love your cyclical logic. I will remind you these guys are suspects. You have apparently tried and convicted them in your mind without bothering to try or convict them in a court or tribunal of law.
"And until the government actually starts wiretapping regular conversations between regular people, I'm not going to be too worried about the NSA program."--rino hunter
As that program had no oversight, how do you know that hasn't happened? How do you define "regular people"?
"Several Democrats in the Senate were even briefed on the program, so there has been some oversight."--rino hunter
That is disingenuous as you know they were gagged about talking about it and it is not clear to what extent they were informed of what was really going on.
Besides, the main oversight (in the form of warrants by the FISA court) rarely if ever occured as it was bipassed.
"As that program had no oversight, how do you know that hasn't happened? How do you define "regular people"
Perhaps I should rephrase what I said. I'll become concerned about the program as soon as the government starts arresting innocent people as a result of the program.
My main point is that without oversight, there is a huge potential for abuse. If you wouldn't want Hilary Clinton to have that kind of power, then you shouldn't want it for President Bush.
"And until the NSA Program is actually declared illegal by the courts, your statement is baseless. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out the case."--rino hunter
Harlequin's opinion isn't baseless at all. It is an opinion that appears to have support by the legislation in question and the Constitution. It is definetly troubling even as expressed in the majority decision you just mentioned by the 6th Circuit Court.
The case was thrown out because the plaintiff's could not sufficiently prove they were ever wiretapped by the classified program, which is probably a correct decision by the court. This program should ultimately be challenged by Congress and not through civil means.
The court did not address the merits at all and the majority decision acknowledged “a cascade of serious questions” about the case.
link (enter the link as a single line of input):
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/washington/06cnd-nsa.html?ei=5070&en=8f0fd7b19538db2d&ex=1185940800&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1185855860-ePYQf0ZYknDt0+tuAsQf3g
"The case was thrown out because the plaintiff's could not sufficiently prove they were ever wiretapped by the classified program, which is probably a correct decision by the court."
On a purely procedural, hyper-technical level, this may well be correct (though my area of expertise does not extend to practice in the federal courts), but procedures have often been made to yield to constitutional concerns. In this case, the safeguarding of one's 4th and 14th amendment rights should not have become nullified by a horrific Catch-22. (Who wrote the opinion, Judge Minderbinder?)
"This program should ultimately be challenged by Congress and not through civil means."
Ah, but civil means are how one sageguards one's rights as a citizen and person against a Congress either unwilling or unable to change an egregious violation of civil rights, or one that enacts such a violation in the first place.
I agree with your analysis. The best thing that could really result from this is censure or impeachment by Congress on the matter (assuming they can provide some cajones). I am not sure it is even possible to demonstrate standing as the program is classified in order to proceed in a civil case.
Great analogy to Catch-22 by the way -- my favorite novel.
dude, don't forget...it was 12 guys with beards, cell phones and box cutters.
we even knew who they were before they attacked.
it's not like they were genius. they were lucky. they found a soft spot and exploited it. wouldn't it be better if we examined the soft spots and fixed those...rather than say, taking apart the constitution and invading other countries?
and heck...it would be cheaper too.
don't be a such a blockhead.
'you have enough freedoms' g.w. bush
the passing of The Genius bill walsh (no disrespect to Ray Charles) made me think of it like this...if the Bengals scored against the niners defense...would Walsh retreat to the locker room and re-invent the whole west coast offense?
no.
He would examine the D and find the soft spot and shore it up for next time....
notice how no one refers to the President as 'genius'?
Programs like the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretapping program, and tough interrogations have protected you from being killed in a terrorist attack. Rino
Rino, how have they protected us? Don’t use “we have not been attacked” line cause you and I and the government all know that it’s takes 3 to 5 years for Al Qaeda to plan and carry out an attack. Could that be why Homeland Security Chernoff has a “gut feeling” about an attack this summer? Could he count the years since 9/11 and think maybe? What exactly have these programs accomplished? Please don’t use the administration line “we can’t tell you cause it’s classified” cause they have no problem releasing “classified” information when it serves their purpose. Are our ports any safer? Are our nuclear facilities safer? Are out borders secure? .
Did the “Patriot Act” or ‘NSA wiretapping” program prevent the most recent attack in London? Seems to me it was alert citizens who prevented the attack.
"If you had your way we would have terrorist attacks unabated."
Statements like that is why no one takes the far right seriously.
So you don't think that an anarchist agenda would lead to more terrorist attacks?
Eggen and Mr. Goldstein are very good journalists. I'm surprised they dropped the ball on this one. They are are usually not afraid of criticizing the administration.
I'll be glad when the Congress can get together with the administration on this, and reach a consensus as to how the FISA should be written, and in what manner the Congress can provide oversight on those intelligence gathering activities (an oversight they must have, because this kind of power used unchecked, is more power than We the People mean for any administration of our Federal Government to have... a confidential oversight, if that's what's required).
And I'd wish that they could do this, the Congress and the administration... and if they have to be antagonistic and hostile to one another in working out this matter of the statute, and it's enforcement, and the Congressional oversight of that enforcement, then I'd wish they could be antagonistic and hostile behind closed doors, instead of in public...
...because I'm right tired of seeing this issue in the "news".
There's no doubt about it, such an intelligence gathering tool as the FISA establishes, is more than necessary it is vital, to our National Security.
And there's also little doubt, about how suspicious we are of just about everything the Bush administration does... because we're not stupid and we can see, how much this administration serves private interests and private persons first, and the rest of us are a mere troublesome afterthought.
Mistrust and suspicion (well earned in these matters, by the Bush administration) are the things we feel naturally for those who threaten us; but when we feel those things for the administrators of our government, then we hobble ourselves and our efforts, toward National Security.
I even want to tell Congressional Democrats to just drop this confrontation of the administration they make, in public; and maybe drop it behind closed doors too... because we must admit, like it or not, the present administration of our Federal Government is headed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney et al...
...and as such, they hold the cards (like it or not); and in this matter of the FISA, they hold them secretly and close to the vest; and we have to admit a level of trust (want to or not) in these matters, because they can't be transparent (FISA of course standing for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: You can't get much more opaque than that).
And so I'll be glad when I no longer see this matter in the "news"... to see it go away immediately, would suit me fine...
...but to see the Bush administration go away immediately, isn't going to happen... we have 17 more months of the Bush administration (like it or not)... 17 more months of the American People feeling an unhealthy mistrust and suspicion, for those who are charged with their National Security.
I'll be glad when it's over.
Of course, where I wrote that "I even want to tell Congressional Democrats to just drop this confrontation of the administration they make, in public", I meant "concerning the FISA"...
I would never expect those Congressional Democrats to give up holding the Bush administration accountable, or give up their oversight obligations to the American People...
I just think they've chosen the most difficult of matters, when they choose the FISA... one that is best debated behind closed doors, and even then it's difficult due to it's nature.
Hey... I heard somewhere that the Bush administration compelled an invasion and occupation of a foreign country, based upon intelligence that was at least false, and perhaps FALSIFIED...
Is that just a rumor, or did that really happen?
I'd think it to be a serious matter to the American People and their Congress, were they misled by the Bush administration like that, by false or FALSIFIED intelligence...
That's something worth maybe investigating...
What's the Senate Intelligence Committee got to say about that I wonder.
RINO HUNTER,
Good work trying to inject a wealth of common sense into this FISA discussion.
Those on the OTHER SIDE of this issue:
Do you really imagine that the intelligence gathering services of this nation have nothing better to do than to spy on ordinary Americans, or for that matter, political opponents? Do you have any faith at all in employees and managers of the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. doing the job of gathering intelligence on potential jihadists as their highest and one an only priority. (I could say “Of course not. You still remember the 800 FBI files of Republicans that showed up mysteriously in the Clinton White House.” Hey, if we do it, why not the Republicans? In fact, I said it. Your skepticism may be well placed.)
The process of gathering intelligence will, of necessity, produce an overwhelmingly large number of dead ends in terms of finding jihadist “nodes” as opposed to non-jihadist nodes. If your government abuses your privacy in the mining of communications data for intelligence on jihadists, then you have recourse to a bastion of lawyers (with the backing of the ACLU, no doubt) in correcting such a wrong.
As for me, Mr. Government worker/manager, if you run across my private stuff in the course of your intelligence gathering and, having discovered I’m not a threat to the country, move on quickly to other sources, then I say you’re doing your job and I have no problem.
But what if mr govt worker sends your ass to guantanamo anyway, just in case? Lots of innocent people get screwed by systems like the patriot act and the wiretapping program.
Even before 911, the fbi estimated that 10 percent of people in our prison system were innocent. I wonder what those numbers are now.
It's all "if you're innocent you should have nothing to hide" until YOU get called a turrist and get sent to cuba. I guess you could always call the uclu and get a lawyer....but wait.....NO YOU COULDN'T.
KEVINO,
Okay, good question (considering where you appear to be coming from). If they send my ass to Guantanamo, I’d have to kiss my ass goodbye. But here’s what: I consider that posssiblity about as remote as winning the lottery or being struck twice by lightening and I’m willing, yea eager, to take the chance in order for Mr. government worker to expedite his intel gathering task.
As for your statement “Lots of innocent people get screwed by systems like the Patriot Act and the wiretapping program, … REALLY? Are you serious? Can you name (or identify in some manner) “lost of people” suffering such a fate. Can you even name a couple? I suggest you are detached from reality and human nature. Do you know any government workers personally, or any military, or any police?
C’mon, are you being honest with yourself?
Oldmarine:
Are you really being honest with yourself? Do you honestly believe that those in power will not, and have not, used and abused the system for their personal and political gain? That is the whole basis for checks and balances such as a court order (see the fourth, fifth, sixth, and ninth amendments).
You can argue your theoretical point that we should have faith in our elected officials to do the right thing without oversight (I don't think you will get any agreement from the people here), but it flies in the face of the most basic principles of the Constitution and what this country was founded on. So, it is truly an academic argument and nothing more.
In this case, the admin. clearly broke the law and violated the Constitution by not seeking warrents for domestic surveillance activities. It doesn't matter what or who they were looking at, although the more they resist the first attempts at Congressional oversight in their tenure, the more suspect they are making themselves look.
JAWILL11,
Of course there have been abuses in the U.S. by those in power in government (I cited the FBI files in the Clinton white house as an example). The question here boils down to a trade off: the “right to privacy” (although there is no such explicit right in the U.S. Constitution) –vs- the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you accept that we are at war with the jihadists (mainly Al Qaeda and Iranian militants), then you are obliged to take a look at that trade off.
Knowing what you know (what you REALLY know, not what the left wing media has been trying to sell us on for the past four years), where do you come down on that trade off? This isn’t a “theoretical point” or an “academic argument”. It’s strictly a matter of common sense.
As for the administration “clearly breaking the law”, this statement has been made repeatedly by spokesmen and media on the left but there has never been a case of abuse of this type of intelligence work by the government ever actually abusing anyone’s rights.
As for resisting congressional oversight, what the administration is resisting is congressional attempts to undermine the war effort: continual jaw-boning about domestic spying and interrogation techniques, leaks of classified data, and the 4-year old drumbeat to which the Democrat party is now inextricably wedded that we are fighting a lost cause in Iraq. (See my posts on the Iraq war effort thread: a very recent quote by the commandant of the Maine Corps).
"there has never been a case of abuse of this type of intelligence work by the government ever actually abusing anyone’s rights."--oldmarine
I would be more confident of your assertions if the administration didn't actively resist any oversight. If you didn't trust Bill and Hilary with the 800 FBI files, why do you think we would trust the Bush Administration to listen in on our phone calls? Aren't you expecting more from us than you are apparently willing to give?
... and there it is. You come down on one side of the trade off and I come down on the other.
Although, it should be pointed out that you apparently switch sides of the tradeoff depending who is in power. Principles should be made of sterner stuff.
RE "there has never been a case of abuse of this type of intelligence work by the government ever actually abusing anyone’s rights."
There has never been a case of any kind ABOUT WHICH WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED. I'd like our representative bodies in congress to know all the details. I'm surprised that you don't. Usually when someone tells a crowd that "there's nothing to see here," there is something that needs to be seen.
Oldmarine:
To start, we are not talking just about the right to privacy (which has been accepted through stari decisi from the ninth amendment), but the right of a person to be protected in their persons and property from unreasonable searches without a warrent (explicitly in fourth amendment).
Second, It is interesting that you pit the right to privacy against the right of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness against each other, as if they are mutually exclusive. I would contend that they both are on one side of the coin, while submission to an authoritative executive conducting secret surveillance of its citizenry without oversight in the hopes that it will bring about some measure of security is on the other. I will choose the former. If you wish to choose the latter, so be it, but it is at odds with the Constitution. You must first convince 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of the Congress to agree with you in order to change it. Until then, I will continue to support efforts to bring this administration and all future administrations into the boundaries of the Constitution.
The rest of your post seems to be baseless, oft-refuted right-wing talking points that I will choose not to address. If you want to continue a serious discussion, leave the "liberal media" and the "undermining the war effort" at home
I don't know why you asked, but yes: I know a police officer and I was in the military during the desert storm.
Regarding giving names of those screwed, no, I cannot name anyone (except maybe padilla?), but that's because we have no idea how these systems are being executed, and since the admin deliberately chose to skirt the fisa court, I have reason to believe that the admin is breaking the laws of our nation. I DO know that we kidnap citizens of other countries and send them to secret prisons, and that doesn't do much for my trust of the govt., either.
Also, there have been reports (valid ones, a year ago maybe?) of local cops using patriot act powers to bust non-terror-related crime, and THAT'S a big problem to me. We've given up too much for these laws to be used to bust guys selling weed.
AND, the fbi (or somebody) was also using new programs to spy on protesters, which I think you will agree is wrong.
KEVINO,
Thank you for your service. I was in Korea with the USMC in ’52.
“Padilla”? How exactly was Padilla “possibly screwed”?
You claim the administration has “skirted the FISA court”. I say that’s not true. Could you please state what you have read or heard in this regard?
Regarding “kidnapping citizens of other countries” and sending them to secret prisons, are you referring to CIA stuff regarding suspected jihadists? If so, yup. I agree - and I have no problem with this given the state of war between the jihadists and us.
Local cops using “Patriot Act powers to bust non-terror-related crime”, “guys selling weed” (you mean drug dealers?). I dunno. Maybe so. And this is bad because …?
Haven’t heard about the FBI “spying on protestors”. You mean anti-war protestors? I’m curious about that.
While I don’t expect you to necessarily expend the effort to enlighten me, I do have to conclude, not surprisingly, that we have quite different views on the motivation of public servants, police, and military folks.
“Padilla”? How exactly was Padilla “possibly screwed”? If he end's up innocent of the one charge (which is a radically different charge from the three that were used as the excuse to hold him incognito), he will definitely have been screwed. You claim the administration has “skirted the FISA court”. I say that’s not true. Could you please state what you have read or heard in this regard? Since the admin did not apply for warrants to spy on citizens within the US from the fisa court, an action which clearly subverts both the letter and the spirit of the act, the court was skirted. I don't know any other way to describe it. Regarding “kidnapping citizens of other countries” and sending them to secret prisons, are you referring to CIA stuff regarding suspected jihadists? If so, yup. I agree - and I have no problem with this given the state of war between the jihadists and us. At least one of those persons had no ties to "them" at all (some guy from canada). He also alleges that he was tortured. I have a big problem with this. Local cops using “Patriot Act powers to bust non-terror-related crime”, “guys selling weed” (you mean drug dealers?). I dunno. Maybe so. And this is bad because …? It's bad because it's evidence of the slippery slope that we're on. I don't care if a dope dealer gets busted, and while I'm ready to accept certain, strictly limited trades of liberty for security, I won't go so far as to let the government get into my business (ostensibly to fight terrorism) and arrest me for unpaid parking tickets. Haven’t heard about the FBI “spying on protestors”. You mean anti-war protestors? I’m curious about that. Yep. It happened. This from wikipedia under "Joint Terrorism Task Force:" In 2002, the Justice Department eliminated regulations put in place after the Church Commission hearings in the 1970s, which disclosed evidence of politically motivated spying and obstruction of first amendments rights by the FBI's COINTELPRO division. Critics worry that JTTF actions may constitute violations of the First Amendment. Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the ACLU indicate that officers from the Colorado JTTF have been collecting personal information on nonviolent protesters.[3] Agents involved with JTTFs have also infiltrated activist peace groups under assumed names.[4] While I don’t expect you to necessarily expend the effort to enlighten me, I do have to conclude, not surprisingly, that we have quite different views on the motivation of public servants, police, and military folks.
Yes. Clearly we differ in opinion.
My father flew in korea. Thanks for fighting.
I don't know what happened to my carriage returns. SOrry for the difficult read y'all!
KEVINO,
True. It is possible that there are instances of abuse by those doing data mining operations wherein some government worker or contractor passed on some private information about some innocent citizen. I daresay that the penalties for this type of behavior on the job would be severe. Moreover, any manager allowing this to happen would have his career terminated and possibly worse. Remember that the justice system is chock full of lawyers ready to pounce with lawsuits.
The point is one of common sense: do you really believe that the fear of such abuse is on a par with the fear of not obtaining valuable intelligence regarding terrorist acts?
We obviously differ greatly in our perception of the motivation of civil servants and elected officials.
"But what if mr govt worker sends your ass to guantanamo anyway, just in case"
The Supreme Court decided a few years back that U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism have to be tried in civilian courts. It was an 8-1 decision. The government can't send you down to Gitmo, so that's one thing that you don't have to worry about.
You should be embarrassed that your president even tried to get away with that one.
I am. Bush went too far with that one.
"If your government abuses your privacy in the mining of communications data for intelligence on jihadists, then you have recourse to a bastion of lawyers (with the backing of the ACLU, no doubt) in correcting such a wrong."--oldmarine
No you don't. You probably won't even know it has happened. It doesn't mean you haven't been put on a government list of some sort. Of course, you have nothing to worry about. You are an apparent cheerleader for this administration. The real question is whether you would want Hillary to have the same powers and lack of oversight. Are you okay with that? If you are, I wonder why you would even mention the 800 misplaced FBI files as there couldn't possibly be anything wrong about that using your own reasoning.
We've been beating this one to death but my bottom line is the trade off I cited above: right to privacy -vs- right to life, liberty, etc.
You didn't answer the question. Would you be just fine with all that power and little to no oversight in the hands of Hilary?