Last night John Aravosis pointed out a question that Andrea Mitchell asked during an interview with James Risen as part of Risen’s book tour.
Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?
Risen: No, I don’t. It’s not clear to me. That’s one of the questions we’ll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don’t know the answer to that
Mitchell: You don’t have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?
Risen: No, no I hadn’t heard that.
That seemed awfully strange on the face of it. Does Andrea Mitchell know something? It would put this story on a whole new level of scandal if Bush directed or permitted the NSA to tap the phones of American journalists. Shortly afterward Duncan Black discovered that MSNBC had edited the Amanpour passage out of their official transcript, which as far as anybody knows seemed like an unusual thing to do. Josh Marshall had pertinent comments, and Aravosis pointed out that a bug on Amanpour’s phones would bring in sensitive communications between some fairly high-placed members of the DC establishment.
Could this be some sort of mistake? It seems unlikely that the question simply never happened, so why ask about one specific person, and then edit it out? MSNBC released this statement:
Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on ‘NBC Nightly News’ nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry.
Like Josh and John, to me this statement suggests that MSNBC may soon release one of the great scandal stories of modern political history. Sleep well, DC media.
***Update***
Carpetbagger comments, and cites an earlier post that may put the wiretap in proper context.
Steve
Pay attention, Tim. This clearly means someone at NBC is writing a book.
Otto Man
This just gets weirder and weirder.
I guess if they were going to tap any journalist’s phone, Amanpour would be a wise choice. All the other ones just seem to regurgitate what the administration gives them. Why bother tapping their phones?
paul
Related, a writer critical of Bush has been put on a no-fly watch list. This Kos diary takes the view that it isn’t a coincidence:
[url=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/5/85158/3266]
Paddy O'Shea
Sign of things to come. In time it will be revealed that Bush and his gang were/are running a massive domestic spying operation with the media being only one particular focus of their concern.
George W. Bush: Dick Nixon with better technology.
Stormy70
Cue black helicopters! Perhaps you all need the tin foil hat from the other day.
Sam Hutcheson
Stormy, what would your reaction be if there were hints that Bill Clinton had used NSA personell to spy on Rush Limbaugh?
searp
It is interesting that the handling of this has been so maladroit. Bush used to let others take the heat, on this one he has put his personal cred, or what is left of it, on the line.
It now seems inevitable that he will take a serious black eye. The “9/11 made me do it” excuse is wearing very thin.
I’d say he has lost Congress – the survival instinct will trump anything.
Mr Furious
Stumbled across this earlier today…
Now that certainly falls under the category of blogger speculation, not fact, but it starts to pick at why unfettered, unsupervised and unaccountable spying is a fucking problem.
The fact that this is even feasible should be upsetting to people, whether you give a shit about the folks on that list or not.
Paul Wartenberg
And the slope just gets slippier by the day. Wiretapping goes from suspected terrorists to suspected activist groups to suspected reporters to suspected politicians to suspected… well, us.
I’m thinking of sending my phone bill to the White House. If they’re sharing my line they might as well share the costs.
Perry Como
Sweet. So a sitting governor is lying to the national media, and now two major reporters are lying to the national media. When will these these liberals stop blaming Bush for everything?
docG
Lessons from A West Virginia coal mine:
News is accurate reporting of events that have actually happened. Inaccuracies, speculation and “if that’s true, then . . .” is nothing but idle gossip and rumormongering.
The Bush administration has clearly displayed a propensity for lying and cheating. In this case, however, there is no news yet. Again, lessons from recent events. Lets wait until we actually know something before getting our panties in a bunch.
Krista
Mr. Furious – chilling. And yes, it’s only blogger speculation, but it does do a lovely job of illustrating why this wiretapping is so disturbing, and also debunks the “they’re only tapping terrorists” defense.
Stormy70
Fake but Accurate? Put a rumor out as fact then expect one’s opponent to debunk it? Who would trust anyone in the media at this point, anyway?
(Boy, that’s alot of question marks up there.)
Lines
A lot of question marks with little to no substance in the questions themselves.
So far, Stormy, you have come out in favor of torturing the innocent as well as the unfettered domestic spying on Americans. Where do you draw the line?
Jorge
Yes, let’s wait and see.
However, if the lid blows on this thing then will those of use who never gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on the WMD thing, the losing freedom via Patriot Act mentality thing, the Iraqi rebuilding thing, the cronyism thing, the torture thing, etc and have been saying he is an incompetent, lying despot want-to-be since the beginning finally get some credit?
When this story blew all we heard was how ridiculous we were to not trust that Bush would only violate the constitution for the greater good. Now, we are on the verge of a story linking the POTUS to using government spies to wiretap the phones of journalists. But heck – Bush is a nice guy and the left is always trying to demonize him.
LITBMueller
My morning coffee must be kicking in, because I can anticipate what will be the Administration’s two-pronged defense if a Amanpour eavesdropping story comes out:
1) Ms. Amanpour was born in Britain, and grew up in Iran
2) We only listened in to Ms. Amanpour’s cell phone while she was abroad, and the protections of the Constitution and the Bill fo Rights do not apply to non-citizens abroad.
The first argument is, of course, silly since she’s married to an American and must at least have a green card since she first moved to the US in the early 80’s about the time she began her career at CNN.
The second argument has been made by the Administration before.
Jim Allen
I’m going to make some popcorn. This is getting interesting.
Stormy70
Thanks for proving my point. I hope you will be able to back that statement up, but I won’t hold my breath.
You do amuse, though.
Paddy O'Shea
I wonder what effect all these revelations regarding Snoop George’s domestic spying are having on the actual domestic spying operation being conducted at the NSA. Are they curbing back things a bit due to all the unfortunate publicity and national concern? Or maybe things have actually stepped up because the administration is hoping to undercover something that will prove the operation is necessary?
I’d bet the latter.
Looks like all hell has broken out in Iraq these last few days. We musn’t forget that the root cause of all that we have been discussing this morning is this terrible war.
Series Of Iraq Attacks Kill At Least 110, Including 5 U.S. Soldiers
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq
So much for the magical effect of elections.
ATS
Not much of a shock with this WH bunch. “Firstfruits” is the code word for the intiative involving spying on journalists. Go to Wayne Madsen’s site and learn all you need to know.
Brian
Re the Carpetbagger reference to the quote from FCN, it does seem shocking at first that a major news organization would say that, but at least FCN is open about their bias. Can you imagine CNN or the NYT being making such a brazen comment? Don’t you wish they would, so that we could finally understand their bias, rather than being fed their insistence that they’re “objective”? FCN at least gets points for full disclosure.
Tim F.
Fox claims to be “fair and balanced.” If they want to claim that they’re not then they should change their motto.
spoosmith
There has to be a reason why, after granting almost every wiretap warrant since it’s inception, the court started turning Bush down and modifying the orders…
Brian
I’ve always taken that to be a tongue-in-cheek dig at the rest of the MSM. FCN is clearly biased, and everyone knows it, and FCN knows that everyone knows it. I think that a large part of their success, and O’Reilly’s success, is that the Left watches the channel just to blow a gasket over THE HYPOCRISY, THE RIGHT-WING BIAS of the coverage. Most conservatives I know, including myself, don’t watch FCN.
Back to topic, is it maybe, just a teensie-weensie bit possible, that Amanpour was contacted by n’er do wells we might find interesting?
ppGaz
Yes, says the gal who wanted to “light up Palestine” because “all the good people have left.”
No, nobody would think of you as somebody with off-the-chart ideas, Stormy. Good heavens, tut tut, etc.
Hook ’em horns ;-)
The Other Steve
It is bizarre. I mean, I could see maybe if Andrea Mitchell had mentioned another broadcaster on MSNBC… just sort of offhand. Like Connie Chung, or Chris Matthews or something?
But Christiane Amanpour works for CNN, and she’s well known as one of their reporters in Iraq, much like Wolf Blitzer got to be known in Gulf War the prequel.
Yeah, it’s a good bet that Mitchell is in the know on some investigation. If so, this would be devastating for the United States. That’s as bad as anything Nixon did.
The Other Steve
Certainly possible. As a reporter in Iraq, it would be her job to try to find out what is going on. As such, she may try to contact members of the insurgency.
But to suggest she would do so because she’s part of a plot against the United States? That’s pretty incredulous, but it seems to be what you are implying if you are saying that spying on her was justified.
Cyrus
Well, clearly somebody is watching it. I assume they aren’t all watching it for the comedy value alone. (To be fair, it might be for the news value too; when their competition is CNN it’s not hard to have better reporting sometimes.)
Possible? Yes. Likely? I don’t know, I know next to nothing about her. Relevant? Maybe – but probably not. I realize this is yet another can of worms in the “War on Terra” debate, but warrants are needed to listen in on the phone calls of people accused of involvement with the mob. Why doesn’t the same protection exist for people – American citizens on American soil, to be clear – accused of involvement with terrorist groups? Warrants in general exist to provide independent oversight and a verifiable paper trail, why are those less necessary when the topic is terrorism? Hell, I’m not married to the pieces of paper called “warrants”, any means of providing the same protections against government intrusion or abuse would be good. Laugh at it or me, but if you’re taking the position that independent oversight isn’t needed, please explain it.
Brian
I don’t think that is likely, that she is plotting against the U.S. However, if anyone was contacted by a person-of-interest, they would be caught up in the net of monitoring that was going on. The fact that it was her might be incidental. I admit this is wild speculation on my part, but not improbable.
Scott
But the NSA was tapping inbound calls — not outbound calls. So, if Amanpour’s phone was tapped, it was because she was called by somebody on our blacklist.
That’s different than tapping her phone.
p.lukasiak
Lets get a few things straight….
Although I’m not in favor of tapping the phones of journalists, even non-American journalists, if the NSA got a warrant for Amapour, we should not immediately assume that there was anything “shady” going on. A warrant at least makes it appear to be legal.
If this was done without a warrant — then there should be hell to pay.
Assuming a warrant was issued, the question then becomes “what was the basis for the FISA courts to issue the warrants? Was evidence presented to the court that was tainted by information acquired through illegal wiretaps? Was “evidence” obtained legally distorted or exaggerated in significance in order to get the warrant?”
THe NSA has the perfect right to tap the phone of anyone known to have connections to terrorists — even if they are not suspected of being involved in terrorism themselves. This is especially crucial as terrorists and their enablers become more wary of surveillance — doing stuff like only using pay phones, or “one time use” cell phones to make contact with people.
So, until I know more details about the Amapour wiretap, I’m reserving judgement.
Brian
Me too. It’s so easy to go way off on a tangent here, so I’ll stop with my last speculation that someone “of interest” had been talking with her. Amanpour is a secondary to the still officially unanswered question as to whether this all is legal or not.
Steve
The FNC comment (“Given the choice, it’s better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda.”) struck me as one of the more perceptive and frank comments I have seen in a long time.
You might argue that the Administration, by design, has created an atmosphere where everyone must choose sides and either be with President Bush or with the terrorists. Under this line of thinking, one shouldn’t hate Fox News, as they’re merely trying to do their best to live in a world they didn’t create.
Gratefulcub
Sarcasm, right?
Great business plan. They took advantage of the myth of the liberal media. They were there to offer truth in the face of the evil liberal media. Rush Conservatives ate it up.
ppGaz
This is not about whether this is legal or not. It’s about whether it’s American or not
Welcome to your new world, AB (after Bush).
Yes, this can happen to you.
Who besides me thinks that this is no longer the America they told us we were growing up in when I went to school?
(No, that wasn’t quite a hundred years ago).
Who besides me is GETTING PISSED?
Kirk Spencer
Scott – according to the reports the taps were in AND out calls. I’m willing to be corrected if you can show me the cite. I’m uncomfortable with the solipsism of calling the tapping of a person’s phone not targetting that person, but can stretch a bit.
Brian and p.lukasiak, I raise a datapoint in the midst of the acknowledgement that we basically know nothing. The question that sparked all this was raised in the context of WARRANTLESS taps. Again we don’t know anything, really. But if the question is interesting it needs to be considered in context, and defenses that counter that context should be given less weight. Or so goes my opinion.
Brian
Please stop with this. It’s is nonsense on its face. I don’t want to move the thread in the direction of proving media biases, but I need to call b.s. when it’s written. And “myth of liberal media” is b.s.
Pooh
WARNING: QUALIFIED DEFENSE OF NSA COMING
You know, I can’t really beat up NSA for snooping Ammanpour per se. As has been mentioned, she probably can get in touch with some bad people – and if we can trace them from her somehow, cue cruise missiles and dead Zarqawi, which is a Good Thing…However, there needs to be very careful consideration in using said tactic, because A) it probably only works a few times B) could put journalists, U.S. and otherwise at risk, C) gives off a strong whiff of something sinister as the above quoted John in DC points out. (Not saying that that did happen, but you can’t rule out something like that happening.)
That being said, lay the case out, put in place some proper minimization procedures, and GET A WARRANT. (Also, This disclosure is the first thing that could have actual Nat-Sec implications, because it could reveal info about a specific tactic. But, if you are doing it illegally, tough shit.)
p.lukasiak
Brian and p.lukasiak, I raise a datapoint in the midst of the acknowledgement that we basically know nothing. The question that sparked all this was raised in the context of WARRANTLESS taps. Again we don’t know anything, really. But if the question is interesting it needs to be considered in context, and defenses that counter that context should be given less weight. Or so goes my opinion.
The impression that I am getting is that we are talking about a huge scandal here, with “warrantless wiretaps” just one aspect of it. Despite the Justice Department investigation, everyone involved seems to still be leaking like a sieve — which means (to me) that there is a whole lot of “ass-covering” going on.
(yesterday’s story about the NSA “exceeding their authority” without a “formal directive” from Bush was a classic example of ass-covering at that White House. The story never bothers to discuss the possibility that something less than an official written Presidential finding and directive signed by Bush was responsible for the NSA actions. And, I’d be disappointed in ANY President who, immediately after 9-11, didn’t say “do whatever you CAN to find out if there is another attack coming, and stop it” to everyone…. so I think its safe to say that there was an “informal directive” that the NSA acted on, and that the Post story was White House spin.)
jg
How is it nonsense? The media cares about staying on air, that’s all. Calling the media liberal because some of the people in the business are liberals is like saying we’re a Christian nation since most of the people in government are Christians.
Richard Bottoms
Hi John. Remember despairing a couple weeks earlier about your prince George and why he would do domestic spying with warrants, when all he had to do was retroactively ask a rubber stamp court to approve them?
And then I said because they are hiding the fact they’ve wiretapped reporters.
Well allow me to take this opportunity to say:
a. I told you so.
b. George Bush is cooked.
I love the smell of impeachment in the morning. It smells like… victory.
simon
This is very interesting as well.
simon
Damn link doesn’t work!
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/007932.php
Dodd
You all sure have worked yourselves up into a frenzy over one question that may or may not have been asked by a hairdo with no evidence to back it up.
LITBMueller
Pooh, you make some great points, but we also need to consider that the Administration would probably never have been able to get a warrant even if they wanted one. I mean, arguing “we would like to monitor her phone calls because she is a famous reporter who has done stories on terrorism and she might possibly end up talking to a terrorist” would not rise to the level of probable cause.
That sort of reasoning could then be used to say “we would like to eavesdrop on all calls made by former President Clinton because he is still in contact with foreign leaders who may discuss with him certain things that would harm the U.S.”
Or, how about, “we would like to eavesdrop on all phone calls made to and from U.S. City X because the U.S. City X has the highest rate a drug-related crime in the United States.” – you just can’t do that.
LITBMueller
Oh, and furthermore, I don’t think FISA would apply to Amanpour. There would be no logical argument that she is an “agent of a foreign power.”
Unless she is working for terrorists and we just don’t know it yet, but somehow I doubt that! :)
So, to get a warrant for a tap, they would need to meet the “traditional” level of probable cause.
The Other Steve
You’re right. The myth is BS. The media was much harder on Clinton than they have been on Bush.
Pooh
LITB,
I’ll take a run at it –
“1. Affiant states that Ms. Ammanpour is scheduled to interview X. al BadGuy by phone at Y time
2. X al BadGuy is implicated in terror acts A,B, and C. His capture is a matter of highest national security interest.
3. For the limited purpose of discerning al BadGuy’s contact information, we wish to apply Z method to miss Ammanpour’s conversations.”
I think something like that with more details fleshed out would fly.
Perry Como
Replace President Clinton with Governor Richardson and you may have something that has already happened.
Pat R.
Sombody raised the question of why wouldn’t Ms. Amanpour’s network, CNN, break this story. The reason CNN would not break this story seems simple. Would you want the public to know that one of your folks is chatting it up with terrorists? Legal, illegal, or whatever. That’s even a much different public perception than having her “interview” terrorists. Bush is not tapping reporters’ phones like Nixon. You’d think they would know by now that Bush doesn’t give a crap about reporters. If Amanpour was caught, it was in the wide net and that puts her on the “wrong” side…even for a liberal Bush-hating network.
We already have CNN’s admission of its collaboration with Saddam and Iraq for a decade or so to suppress information about that country in order to benefit themselves (i.e. they were privy to information they chose not to share so they could milk more exclusive psuedo-stories, despite the cost in human lives and suffering of their selfish decision). Coupling that fact with Amanpour’s globetrotting and rather sympathetic political views, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she has a wealth of information about Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups that she chooses not to reveal.
It would be nice to think that, just on the basis of humanity, Ms. Amanpour would be willing to supply information voluntarily that might save people’s lives from terrorist attacks — that she would value human lives above “the story” and “access”. But we know from experience that this is often not the case. Therefore, I have no problem with the U.S. monitoring communications between her and known/suspected terrorists to gather intelligence just in case she’s feeling too reporter-ish and not quite human enough to pass that information along on her own.
I certainly have no more concern about her communication being monitored because she’s a “reporter” than I would if she were not.
Pooh
Well hold on Pat. If she gives up information, she can no longer get the story, so she has no information. So what’s the point?
tb
I don’t want to move the thread in the direction of proving media biases, but I need to call b.s. when it’s written. And “myth of liberal media” is b.s.
Come on, support your assertion. Don’t hide behind the old “integrity of the thread” dodge. We want to hear your “proof”.
Sam Hutcheson
When the shooting starts, make sure Pat R. is on the other side of the barricade, kids.
Steve
Once again, truth is shown to be stranger than DougJ. Yes, let’s tap Amanpour’s phone, “just in case.” Who would have a problem with that?
LITBMueller
Hey, Pooh, that’s a good stab, but it doesn’t seem logical for one be reason: How did the government come to know that Amanpour was going to interview a terrorist? A wiretap?
Seems to me that it would be much more likely (and we certainly don’t know, but its fun to speculate) some blanket monitoring in hope to overhear a conversation that might be useful. That is something the government just can’t do to US citizens thanks to the 4th Amendment.
So, the problem is that the government would still run up against a legal wall. Maybe under FISA your proposed affidavit would fly, but FISA would not apply unless the government had some evidence that Amanpour was an “agent of foreign power.”
Barring that, they need to show probable cause why they should violate Ms. Amanpour’s 4th Amendment rights – the right to not be unreasonably searched. In other words, the government would need to show that there is probable cause that SHE is going to commit a crime in order to tap HER phone.
The 4th does not protect a terrorist, but Amanpour still gets its benefits, no matter who she is talking to. If the conversation is just an interview, where is the probable cause as it relates to her?
I would also not be surprised to see, if a court reviewed a similar warrant affidavit, maybe even a discussion of the 1st Amend./freedom of the press.
Pooh
There lies the rub LITB. Perhaps a Production Assistant or some such is a CI. Obviously, I’m in the realm of pure speculation here, but it’s not hard to imagine a way in which some surveillance of Ammanpour would be appropriate. Now is that what I think happened? Well, A) I have no damn clue, and B) I assuming competence, dilligence and good faith. Make of that what you will. (I agree that a blanket wiretap/pen register is more likely)
As to CA’s 4th amendment rights, I think that proper minimization procedures combined with a demonstrable need to use this method (standard wiretaps warrants generally require PC + exhaustion of other investigative techniques) go a long way towards reasonableness, but I’m talking somewhat out of my arse on this point (moreso than usual…)
ppGaz
Just last month, Bush gave a speech in which he said that he’d “listen to people with other opinions.”
Apparently, “listen” was to be taken literally.
In any case, what’s all the fuss about?
jolly
Sounds like Stormy’s out of scotch. She’s a bit cranky tonight. Can someone send her some? Or perhaps a nice DVD?
There you go… good girl.
The Other Steve
Man, who let Pat Robertson post here.
moflicky
Interesting topic, and many good arguments, but I see time and time again, the same honest but misinformed arguments throughout, so i’d like to make a few points for general discussion.
point 1: everyone talks about the NSA program as if they’re actually tapping ‘a’ wire. The speculation is that this is not your daddy’s wiretap, that it’s a technological leap on the order magnatude of the telegraph to cell phone.
here is some informed speculation from the techies at ARStechnica on what sort of technologies are being employed in this program. google the terms (separately) CALEA, TIA and Echelon for an idea of what they’re talking about.
Short version – there aren’t a basement full of spooks with headphones listening to these phone calls. computers monitor traffic to and from hot spots and hot numbers, voice recognition software stores words and numbers in a data warehouse, and that data is mined for specific word, phrase and number combinations. patterns are recognized and further investigated.
Hardly something that can be covered by a warrant. or ten thousand warrants.
I’m not defending this practice, but I’m not condemning it outright either. It is what it is, and to argue the point based on preconceptions about hollywood wiretaps and mobsters is wasting everyone’s time.
Point 2: This is likely how Amanpour could have been ‘monitored’. She has filed many, many reports quoting information that could only have been provided by iraqi insurgents and terrorists. She had an hour long special called “inside al-qaida” for pete’s sake.
The terrorists have her ear and she, theirs – the whole point of the insurgency is not to win a military victory, it’s to sway public opinion in America. she helps that effort.
Regardless if she was here or in iraq, if she’s talking to them, the computers could have picked it up. Point being, they didn’t target her, they picked her up via their data mining ops.
point 3: At what point does “getting the story” at any cost turn into “shilling for the enemy”? is that point ever crossed?
point 4: why would msnbc edit out the Amanpour question from their transcript?
I await the wolves – tear me up.
Pooh
mo, good points.
Point 1, I as imagining something of a spiderweb approach from CA to try to ID terrorist contacts.
Point 2. Perhaps valid, though I think from a prudential standpoint, were I to try to get results, she is a good starting point.
Point 3. Of course. I’m not familiar enough with her work to make a judgment. I will say that it is probably useful for people here to get a more internationalist perspective (no that does not mean pro-al Qaeda. I think we lose sight of how the rest of the world, rightly or wrongly, views us. And like it or not, that perception matters.)
Point 4. A) They might not have had enough to go on with the story to begin with (Risen being asked on background) so didn’t want it to get out, and perhaps it got posted by mistake. B) This could be closer to revealing a real tactic than anything we’ve seen so far.
TBone
First of all…I read alot of comments that use the word “tap” in the wrong context. Please understand the concepts before you engage your mouth. The NSA doesn’t physically “tap” anyone’s phone. Physical wiretaps are done by law enforcement personnel locally in order to listen to calls; “intercepts” are done by NSA from far far away. Understand the difference and the methodology…the distinction will be important when all the facts come out. That’s all I’m gonna say on that one.
Secondly, if Amanpour’s communications were being intercepted by NSA, it’s not because they found her number and said, “Hey let’s listen in on her phone.” The more likely scenario is that a known AQ affiliated number dialed her number from their bat-cave, and then (and only then) did her number come under scrutiny.
If she was talking with AQ, then she was fair game. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was in bed with those fools (literally and figuratively) considering the overt anti-right (hence pro-everyone else) bias she has exhibited in the past.
moflicky
Pooh,
Possibly. I can also imagine a scenario where the phone numbers connected to known numbers are added to the mix and numbers connected to those numbers are added as well. Due to a contact with a known bad guy number, her own number might have been added automatically to the watch list.
Of course it matters, but I don’t think there’s any chance of our media letting us lose sight of what the rest of the world thinks of us. They remind us daily. As well as many of our statesmen (term used loosely).
It sounded to me like a ‘so, do you still beat your wife’ kind of question too. random fishing? probably not. She probably had some inside info on the connetion. It’s also informative that Mitchell barely escaped being subpoenaed in the Plame case for her ‘many of us in the media were already aware of Plame’s CIA employment’ remark – which she has since clumsily back-tracked from.
Maybe she’s got her own NSA sources and is afraid of being subpoenaed in this case. But if that’s the case, it doesn’t seem very bright to ask the question in the first place, unless you knew that he knew. These days, it’s nearly impossible to cover this sort of quote up – blogs and browser caches won’t let you get away with it.
Capitalist Infidel
I knew it wouldn’t be long before it was shown that prominent democrats had an operational relationship with al Qaeda. This is going to be huge!
John S.
Thanks for that stunning analysis. Your puppetmasters have taught you well. Do you listen to a tape while you sleep at night that plays on a loop:
Anyone who is not conservative is a terrorist sympathizer, and comports (literally and figuratively) with al Quaeda.
Anti-right means pro-everything else? That’s just about the dumbest shit I have ever read, not to mention a glaringly false duality. But what more would I expect from the ‘with us or against us’ crowd?
BTW, people who are anti-ketchup are pro-salsa.
Cyrus
Thank you kindly for that informed speculation. (Er, is that an oxymoron?) You might be surprised, but I have heard of Echelon before. It is my understanding, and for whatever it’s worth Wikipedia backs me up, that ECHELON deliberately avoided domestic spying until Bush changed that. They did so through a combination of focusing on communications within other countries when possible, and when not possible they avoided it by deleting any information they shouldn’t have within a certain time period – “catch and release,” if you will, as I understand.
Bush changed this. Even if the problem is that existing law can’t keep up with technology – and we only have blogger speculation on that, as far as I know the Administration itself isn’t using it as a defense – it doesn’t matter. If the law is inadequate you’re supposed to change it, not ignore it.
First of all, if the government thinks she’s done something wrong, they can get a warrant. It’s apparently not hard. Second, the whole point of the insurgency is not that simple. Doesn’t the “American public opinion” school of thought just boil down to saying “if we lose, it’s the fault of the anti-war movement”? Third, while of course this defense doesn’t apply to everyone who calls himself a journalist, the truth is important regardless of whether it helps the country or not. If things are going badly, don’t shoot the messenger. Talking to an insurgent and/or terrorist isn’t necessarily a crime. Even if she does help them – and even if so, we have no way of knowing if she sympathizes with them and it’s offensive to assume so without evidence – there are still limitations on the power of the government in regards to her. Basically, as others have said, it’s not as simple as “you’re with us or against us.”
Sure it is. If you think she’s crossed it, get a warrant. (Either that or declare her an enemy combatant. I’d love to see them take such a direct approach. Oh man, the circus that would ensue…)
It might be for the reason many are suggesting: that they’re investigating whether a prominent journalist with personal ties to Democrats was
wiretapped(if you really care about that word, “eavesdropped on”) without a warrant, and having the quote out there would tip their hand too soon. Of course, removing it just draws attention to it, so either way it’s dumb. That seems the most likely reason, but who knows? For some really irresponsible speculation, maybe they were intimidated or threatened into doing so, or maybe Mitchell decided on the spur of the moment to sabotage Amanpour’s career and regretted it later, or maybe it was never actually said on the air but appeared in the transcript somehow, or… who knows? I wish they hadn’t done that – it feels dishonest, even though it’s obviously not illegal or anything – but this seems like the least important to me of all the issues around warrantless wiretapping.I don’t think this counts. Sorry.
Brian
It’s nonsense because the evidence is on the front pages and on the airwaves. Has been for decades.
If you’d like, we can play media mogul. I’ll give you my Fox News and WSJ editorial page for your NYT, LAT, San Fran Chron, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News (broadcast and cable news outlets), CNN, and HBO (home of Stewart and Maher).
Sounds fair to me.
John S.
Fine, let’s play your game. First, how shall we establish the rules?
ATS
“If she was talking with AQ, then she was fair game. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was in bed with those fools (literally and figuratively”
Actually, she’s in bed with James Rubin, her husband, now with a pro-Israeli think tank. Such organizations are not known for being chummy with AlQ.
Brian
No rules needed. I’ll give you “my” properties, and you can give me “yours”. Then we do with them what we wish in terms of dissemenating news to our audience. If FCN is so dangerously partisan and conservative compared to your proerties, then I’ll give it to you to fix in exchange for your properties.
The resources, insitutional history, and audience of your properties are relatively the same as mine anyhow, right? There should be no big deal.
moflicky
Cyrus,
the speculators at ARS were careful to speculate that this was not Echelon, but that this program used some of the same technologies.
9/11 changed this. how soon we forget.
Ain’t that a kick. For the moment, I’ll accept your assumption that this was beyond the scope of presidential powers (not even close to being clear cut either way).
To change the laws to catch up with technology, you must expose that technology, air it in congress and debate and publicize the methods, making them largely obsolete.
What would be the point? By-the-book medical treatment killed the patient.
I’m saying they weren’t targeting her, they didn’t feel she was doing anything wrong, and (speculation again) simply caught one or more of her communications with the bad guys.
If she’s in regular contact with them, especially while overseas, this would be well under the umbrella of war time military intelligence, which is not under any fisa restrictions.
maybe not hard to get specific warrants against specific people for specific purposes, but I’m saying that this wasn’t how it was done. they were collecting data on lots of comm traffic, none of it very specific, with no idea of what they would find. (speculating again – hell, this is ALL speculation) once collected, only using what was useful for tracking and stopping the bad guys.
The goal is not to collect evidence for convictions. The goal is to find them, find out what they are planning, stop the plans and if we’re lucky, eliminate them with extreme prejudice. That’s what spooks do.
Just a simple question. does the insurgency have a farts chance in a whirlwind of defeating us militarily? no. Their only chance IS to turn public opinion.
Tragic as they both are, our media currently places the same emphasis on iraqi civilian casualties as they do our military casualties, in terms of whether we’re ‘winning’ or not. Is it any wonder, for the past 2 years the insurgents mostly target iraqi civilians? much less risk, and lots more bang for the buck.
I understand the drumbeat from the anti-war left – most are working from heartfelt conviction. it’s the middle of the roaders who agree with the mission but are getting war fatigue i’m worried about. If we lose, I won’t blame the anti-war left, i’ll blame this country’s lack of patience and fortitude under stress, and those who enabled that perception and outcome. It’ll be another beruit, somolia, or a half dozen other recent skirmishes where we started something with good intentions and left the job unfinished.
Is there nothing but bad things going on over there? Watching the news, you’d think so. Yet the soldiers with boots on the ground there feel we’re winning, they feel they’re doing good things, they feel they can turn this around. who are we to believe?
never said it was. In fact, I’m certain that she’s not committing any crime, nor is the government worried about her. but being in contact with terrorists is a dangerous business, and just because a journalist is involved periferally, is no reason to not go after that info.
but it is as simple as “if your against us, buddying up with a journalist is not going to save your butt.”
or just listen in to her conversations with terrorists to get info on them. she’s not the target, they are.
I loves ta argue!
moflicky
Brian,
You’re wasting your time. Lefties truly believe their ‘centrist’ because they’re not full blown communists.
Their baseline at what they believe. Anything to the left or right of Howard Dean or Ted Kennedy is extreme. Centrist is extreme right. Hell, they consider Chris Matthews a neocon.
chef
Another possibility. The NSA Echelon Radomes at Bad Aibling (near Munich) have been turned over to the Bundesrepublik. Is it hard to imagine that part of the price might be having the Germans do stuff that it is illegal for Americans to do?
Consider the all the outsourced torture. Are the boys in Ft. Meade outsourcing media (or even domestic) spying? Who doubts that this administration would do this if they can?