Great News
Now shut up about it already. WaPo on NSA spying:
The Bush administration’s chief intelligence official said yesterday that President Bush authorized a series of secret surveillance activities under a single executive order in late 2001. The disclosure makes clear that a controversial National Security Agency program was part of a much broader operation than the president previously described.
The disclosure by Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, appears to be the first time that the administration has publicly acknowledged that Bush’s order included undisclosed activities beyond the warrantless surveillance of e-mails and phone calls that Bush confirmed in December 2005.
In a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), McConnell wrote that the executive order following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks included “a number of . . . intelligence activities” and that a name routinely used by the administration — the Terrorist Surveillance Program — applied only to “one particular aspect of these activities, and nothing more.”
“This is the only aspect of the NSA activities that can be discussed publicly, because it is the only aspect of those various activities whose existence has been officially acknowledged,” McConnell said.
Well, I’m afraid that’s just not good enough. NYT, you see that? If there are secret operations out there to spy on our enemies in time of war, that information clearly belongs on the front pages of our newspapers.
This disclosure underscores the importance of the Congressional effort to oust Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. While there has been no indication he ever did anything but his job, political gotcha is not about what someone might have done wrong. It is about what they can be made to appear to have done wrong, and as such an effort steamrolls on, it can flatten many objects in its path.
This evidence of spying on a broader scale is a promising new area for Congressional interference and indignation, and we can rest assured our diligent representatives and senators won’t miss the opportunity to fully exploit it and prevent the abuses of big government and the trampling of the rights of individual jihadis and sovereign terrorist groups.
Hold on, what this? Dems scrambling to help Bush admin spying? NYT:
WASHINGTON, July 31 — Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government’s electronic wiretapping powers.
Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval.
Under pressure from evil Bush admin, Congress moves to trample on rights of individual jihadis and soveriegn terrorist groups. Outrage! Next thing you know, they’ll succumb to Bush admin pressure want to oppress the rights of the genocide-loving Iraqi people to murder each other wholesale, and the sovereign right of Persian mullahs to control the world’s major oil reserves.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:42 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2007
21 Responses to “Great News”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:36 am
Hey, I didn’t know that calls sometimes pass through the US even when neither endpoint is located in the US. I bet the terrorists didn’t either.
They do now.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:58 am
Unless they’re idiots, which a lot are, the pros won’t be talking on phones at all. They be using steganographic encryption methods and posting innocuous looking pictures of flowers on gardening newsgroups.
At least that’s how I’d do it if I were a terrorist who didn’t want to get caught.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Unless the Democrats’ bill pardons Bush for past crimes, there are still three simple inquiries to make:
1. Was there a wiretap placed on a phone based on US soil?
2. Were the provisions of FISA followed in placing the wiretap?
3. If no, then it’s a felony count for each wiretap placed. Let the proceedings begin.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
‘Unless the Democrats’ bill pardons Bush for past crimes…’
I don’t think you get it.
Why would one assume from the two articles that your three simple inquiries need to be made? Though I will give you that in today’s congress there are a lot of Democrat dolts who don’t realize that pointless inquiries have been proving counterproductive to their interests and approval ratings (and I include some of the logest sitting and most powerful Democrats in that category). The proposed bill has to do with information before the committees, not what WaPo and the NYT would have one think if they get caught up in the articles’ fluff.
If one just reads the NYT article the pertinent information isn’t stressed or for that matter even mentioned until late in the article, but it is there. A series of briefings has been ongoing to both the House and Senate Intelligence committees. Both committees are chaired by democrats, so it would be a pretty stupid assumption that they are bowing to administration pressures or that they would be giving the administration a pass for any wrongdoing.
What the NYT is saying it is when you look at the factual content of the article is that the administration has presented information to both committees that both committees agree indicates that domestic courts oversight is not appropriate in certain surveillance activities.. Given who gave the latest brief, it’s a fair assumption that the concern is national security. Albeit when you look at the article’s structure and wording the NYT is attempting some correlation with the phantom perjury accusations against Gonzales, they do see fit to quote concern about urgency and importance (not from republicans by the way…).
The WaPo article is even less informative. All it is really saying is that classified efforts made under the executive order were not public knowledge - doh!!. What they leave out is how the process works and that the NYT does mention if in a sideways manner. The efforts were known to the Intelligence committees, where classified initiatives are normally dealt with - doh!!!.
August 1st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
[...] better the actions of militants within the borders of the United States– a conclusion that supporters of the program have long made a cornerstone of their arguments in favor of the [...]
August 1st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
“Why would one assume from the two articles that your three simple inquiries need to be made?”
Because in law-abiding societies, it’s important to find out if felonies have been committed.
August 1st, 2007 at 3:42 pm
‘Because in law-abiding societies, it’s important to find out if felonies have been committed.’
Then you should read up on what law-abiding societies require of the process - ours anyway. They require probable cause for initiating the investigation that the inquiries you think appropriate would in turn require. Or do you believe that congress should endlessly call people in front of their committees to pose any and all questions that occur to them hoping that eventually they will unearth something?
There is nothing here and at the risk of repeating myself, you don’t get the articles if you see them suggesting probable cause for a felony investigation.
I have no doubt that it will be the clarion call on the marching moron sites for a day or two, but you strike me as a bit less prone to managed hysteria than that.
Again,
The WaPo article is recasting information to suggest wrongdoing but is actually no more than recycling the fact that Gonzales would not talk about classified TSP activities except in closed session. Such a session would be limited to vetted people with the proper security clearances. The dolts questioning him refused the offer because in didn’t play into their pointless grandstanding inquiries (see my comment above). That requires a public soapbox. The WaPo article is devoid of any new information.
The NYT article tries to draw something that is currently occurring into the same framework. On the other hand, their article does point out some new and interesting information to anyone who reads it with an open mind.. Something is brewing on the security front that the administration believes requires something - let’s call it fast and furious surveillance for the sake of simplicity. The legislators on the cognizant committees seem to agree and rather wholeheartedly. Something Admiral McConnell has been saying has both committees immediate and non-partisan attention. Refreshing, actually.
Don’t mistake me on Gonzales either. He should have been cut loose as soon as he showed such ineptitude in front of hostile committees. But that doesn’t make him a perjurer or criminal or even inept in performing the nuts and bolts aspects of his job.
August 1st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
You are a good writer, Old Man Tyme. Nothing wrong with repeating yourself when you make such good points so well. A lot of people apparently need to hear them repeated. (Often that includes me.)
I appreciate your analysis. And your patience!
The only thing I don’t get is your nickname. Old Man Thyme I could understand…. my best guess is that your name really is Tyme!
August 1st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
First off, I have not read the articles you’re quoting from, nor do I have time to, and I doubt hugely that I go to the sites you’re referring to, so I’m just not going to comment on those. I’m talking here strictly about the FISA violations we already know of. Second off, there is no need for probable cause in a congressional investigation, so I don’t know where you’re getting that from. That aside, in this case, not only is there probable cause - there’s almost certain cause here.
The Bush administration has admitted that it has wiretapped domestic-based conversations without authority of the FISA court. (In fact, if memory serves, I think it was Bush himself who admitted it at a press conference.) On its face, that is a felony for every instance.* The intercepts were authorized by the president. On its face, then, that is an impeachable offense.
These matters were squelched when the Republicans had the majority. Now, though, it’s time to bring the facts out on the table.
* Just to head off anyone from jumping in before they can swim, this is the FISA definition of electronic surveillance that requires FISA court approval:
“Electronic surveillance” means—
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes
August 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I see the leftscum are still more interested in getting Bush than they are in gettiing Al Qaida.
Typical.
August 1st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
“…trampling of the rights of individual jihadis and sovereign terrorist groups.”
We have to nip that in the bud, pronto!
August 1st, 2007 at 5:32 pm
‘First off, I have not read the articles you’re quoting from…’
Give me a break. If you’re not willing to read the artciles that Jules links in the post, then why should your comments in the thread be taking seriously? Jeez.
‘Second off, there is no need for probable cause in a congressional investigation, so I don’t know where you’re getting that from…’
Well. for one, when I asked why one would assume from the two articles that your three simple inquiries , your response never mentioned a congressional hearing. So your new response is rather specious on two levels. You said, and I quote (because I’m not above reading information relevant to the discussion before sticking my nose in):
‘Because in law-abiding societies, it’s important to find out if felonies have been committed.’
The other specious factor is that you answered the question of why one would assume from the two articles…etc. It turns out reading the articles in question is beneath you and making any response to the question under those circumstances was rather dumb.
By the way, what country you from? The congress is this one most certainly does operate under committee rules that determine when and for what reason they can call investigations and those rules do address cause.
Well, be that as it may be, that’s as far as I’ll go addressing the flights of fancy about impeachment and probable cause in the rest of your last comment. That’s KOS kiddie marching moron drivel (if you ‘don’t go to the sites you’re referring to’, you certainly march with them it seems). I see no reason to bother with you if you find reading the articles the post is based on not worthy of your bother.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:05 pm
‘The only thing I don’t get is your nickname. Old Man Thyme I could understand…. my best guess is that your name really is Tyme!’
Nope. When I first registered on another site waaaay back when (bulletin board days), I meant to type in ‘Time’ but fumbled fingered both the ‘T and ‘Y’ at once. Liked the way it looked, dumped the I’, and stuck with ‘Tyme’.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Or do you believe that congress should endlessly call people in front of their committees to pose any and all questions that occur to them hoping that eventually they will unearth something?
If corndog does believe that, he ought to read up on this person. For that historical perspective, I mean. The one that lefties usually ignore.
If you’re not willing to read the artciles that Jules links in the post, then why should your comments in the thread be taking seriously?
I concluded corndog was not worth taking seriously because he kept on chasing his own tail in arguments. Now I see why. To paraphrase an old Hollywood cliche’:
“Facts? We doan need no steenkin’ facts!“
August 1st, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I’m not surprised that those hungry to relive their “victory” in producing a national defeat in Viet Nam, also hunger for a Watergate-like scandal. It’s embarrassing to see so many of my contemporaries display all the symptoms of early-onset second-childhood.
Speaking for myself, I’m sick to death of the waste in time and taxpayer money spent just so that they can preen and pose and pretend to be doing something other than scandal-monger.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Oh for heaves sakes, do these people ever wonder how it is those European socialists they are so eager to emulate can round up dozens of people at the drop of a hat?
To hear corndog tell it the government can harass people for the sheer nasty fun of it, but they can not put terrorists under surveillance.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Some individuals are primarily interested in trotting out the (usually inapplicable) phrase…”an impeachable offense”…than they are in the nuts and bolts of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act and the so called “FISA Court” established under that Act.
In the latest chapter today, some people from Grassroots America apparently approached Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-North Dakota) about impeaching the President.
It smacks of payback for the (former) sitting President who clearly perjured himself in both the federal and state (Arkansas) cases against him.
From individuals who don’t understand and don’t care to understand the concept of “impeachment”.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:29 pm
“…do these people ever wonder how it is those European socialists they are so eager to emulate can round up dozens of people at the drop of a hat?”
Ze French (it is said) do not mess around when it comes to invading the privacy of, incarcerating et al and etc. suspected troublemakers/would be terrorists/plotters of evil deeds (fill in the blank)
Despite that ultra liberal persona that attaches to Ze French.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:39 pm
“Speaking for myself, I’m sick to death of the waste in time and taxpayer money spent just so that they can preen and pose and pretend to be doing something other than scandal-monger.”
Yes, it’s quite depressing.
Old men, digesting lunch, trying to remember their lines.
(what wazzit I was “outraged” about 3 decades ago ?)
And then people like subpoena happy Henry Waxman, chair of some new oversight committee.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:13 am
OMY says: “Give me a break. If you’re not willing to read the artciles that Jules links in the post, then why should your comments in the thread be taking seriously? Jeez.”
This is the first time you’ve made an argument that I actually agree with, Old Man. Yeah, I probably should have been reading and commenting on those articles, but I only had time to skim through quickly and my comment was what came to mind. And yes, when I said finding out if crimes have been committed, I probably should have specified Congress, but I thought it was pretty obvious to all that the Justice Department isn’t going to lift a finger.
As to the rest of OldMan’s comments and everyone else who commented, my reply is the same: If you think the type of action that has been taken was necessary, then change the law. Otherwise, you’re breaking it. In a lawful society, everyone must obey the law, especially those in charge. This was not a mere technicality. The law provides for a felony charge for wiretapping a domestic communication without FISA approval. Even a very, very strict constructionist like Surley knows you need a warrant with probable cause before you can conduct search and seizure.
Same thought goes for changing FISA. The danger is that the ones doing the surveillance are also the ones put in charge of oversight. This is what the Bush administration is demanding now, and it’s incredibly dangerous. Think of it this way: when Hillary becomes president, do you want Janet Reno in charge of wiretapping AND in charge of overseeing the legality of that wiretapping? I don’t think so.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:12 am
Actually, corndog, you came into the thread inferring that the administration - specifically Bush in your comment - committed impeachable crimes. That was the immediate comment that, as you say, came to your mind and a good indicator of your normal mode of thought - factually deficient when it comes to this administration. Tossing out your nonsense in this thread wasn’t quite a non sequitor given the gist of the articles and so I addressed your comment. It turns out that you didn’t/haven’t bothered to read the articles the post is based on, so I guess it was a non sequitor and wasn’t worthy of my bother.
Thing is, it’s old discredited BS anyway, and not just because,as you claim, it was a republican congress. Tossing out your reasoning for why it should have been different doesn’t make it, any more than your claim that Clinton wasn’t charged with perjury sometime back. The record says differently in both cases and tossing out might have beens based on information you dig up without understanding the relevance just makes you appear foolish.
My advice is that you wait on Waxman in the House, and Conyers in the Senate for your impeachment scripting rather than recycle old nonsense. They’ve both been making grandiose claims since January of uncovering criminal or impeachable offenses momentarily and digging frantically to back up their claims. If you think that they didn’t consult with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on surveillance matters very soon in their hunt and found no joy there, you haven’t much appreciation for the impression of how partisan the two men think or do business they themselves project. Even predisposed to find something, anything, to go on, they aren’t getting anywhere against what has been a remarkably clean administration. Not pristine certainly, but compared to past administrations both Republican and (especially) Democrat remarkably clean and moreso when one considers the scrutiny the administration has been under by the ankle biting crowd.
“The danger is that the ones doing the surveillance are also the ones put in charge of oversight.”
No argument there. However, the articles mentioned in the post that you haven’t bothered to read clearly point out that the two Intelligence committees are performing their oversight function. I see no reason to think they won’t continue to perform that oversight function. It is, after all, why they sit on those committees. It is, after all, integral to why those committees exist in the first place.
“This is what the Bush administration is demanding now…”
No, they aren’t. Or at least there’s no support for claiming so. Since the classified briefings addressing the request for FISA changes was made in closed session, you have no factual basis for making this statement other than your predilection for making Bush and his adninistration your personal boogum. You don’t know the rationale presented in the brief any more than I or the WaPo or the NYT do.