Members of the intelligence community yesterday testified that public leaks have damaged their ability to do their work:
U.S. intelligence officials told Congress on Thursday that disclosure of once-classified projects like President Bush’s no-warrant eavesdropping program have undermined their work.
“The damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission,” CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing disclosures about a variety of CIA programs that he suggested may have been compromised.
Goss said a federal grand jury should be empaneled to determine “who is leaking this information.”
***National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, who oversees all intelligence activities, strongly defended the program, calling it crucial for protecting the nation against its most menacing threat.
“This was not about domestic surveillance,” he said.
***Goss complained that leaks to the news media about classified CIA programs — such as reported CIA secret prisons abroad — had damaged his own agency’s work.
“I use the words `very severe’ intentionally. And I think the evidence will show that,” he said.
Goss cited a “disruption to our plans, things that we have under way.” Some CIA sources and “assets” had been rendered “no longer viable or usable, or less effective by a large degree,” he said.
The revelations have also made intelligence agencies in other countries mistrustful of their U.S. counterparts, Goss said.
“I’m stunned to the quick when I get questions from my professional counterparts saying, `Mr. Goss, can’t you Americans keep a secret?”
Goss, when pressed, said he was speaking of programs run by the CIA, and would let NSA officials speak for themselves.
Gen. Michael Hayden, the principal deputy director of national intelligence and a former NSA director, said it was hard to characterize any damage done to his agency in an open session.
But, he said, “Some people claim that somehow or another our capabilities are immune to this kind of information going out into the public domain.”
“And, I can tell you, in a broad sense, that is certainly not true.”
After a public session lasting just under four hours, the committee and its witnesses went into a closed-door session.
While the damage done to civil liberties (or the threat of damage done to civl liberties) has received widespread coverage, and debates over the legality v. illegality of the NSA wiretapping have received widespread coverage, there has been little discussion about any actual damage from these disclosures.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hmm a post pointing to the fact that rank-and-file administartion inteligence appointees’ word–who have an obvious conflict on interest–should be taken over all the independent NSA and security officials who have said there was relatively no damage done to National Security because the terrorists already knew we were trying to spy on them…
Color me unimpressed. They only thing that came out John was that the Bush Admin. aren’t getting warrants for the taps. Do you really think Osama Bin Laden and his ilk give two shits if Bush gets warrants or not?
No, you know who does and should? The American people.
Blue Neponset
I have been following this issue closely and I can’t figure out how the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. have been hurt by the disclosure of this warrantless spying program. Can someone explain to me why this disclosure has hurt the ability of the intelligence community to do its job? Did the terrorists think we wouldn’t listen in on their telephone conversations if we were presented with the opportunity? I just don’t understand what new procedures or tactics were exposed as a result of this leak.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*of interest
The Disenfranchised Voter
The intelligence community wasn’t hurt. The Bush Aministration was.
The Republicans are trying to fram this issue as either you support warrantless wiretaps or you don’t support spying on terrorists.
The either/or choice they are attempting to frame this as is total bullshit.
John Cole
DEV- you open-minded thinkers, I swear.
Only if you went into this piece with the attitude that there has been no damage and that all of them are liars could you come away from this post with the impression that I believe totally their claims.
I didn’t say they were right or telling the truth. I said there appears to have been no discussion of whether any damage was actually done.
Some of you guys are as reflexive as the Powerline.
Lee
A political appointee defending the administration that appointed him. What has life come to!!
/sarcasm off
As for the CIA not being able to run secret prisons, excellent. I am glad that it was stopped.
As for the wiretaps, I’ll concurr with Blue above and go a bit further that the terrorists that were not aware of us listening to their conversation were of the Brooklyn Bridge variety (more danger to themselves than to anyone else).
farmgirl
John, in fairness you should take note of who has actually been doing the most talking about this, as it was pointed out in the session, and quoted earlier in the article.
‘But Democratic members of the panel accused the Bush administration of wanting to have it both ways.
“The president has not only confirmed the existence of the program, he has spoken at length about it repeatedly,” while keeping Congress in the dark, said Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the panel’s senior Democrat.
Rockefeller suggested that such “leaks” most likely “came from the executive branch” of the government.’
Come on. Bush went on a campaign-style speech spree on the topic, and Goss wants to complain about leaks?
Ancient Purple
Fixed.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Enh what can I say?
When your sources are Negroponte (who was behind the funding of the death squads in S America under Reagan) and General Hayden (the guy who said probable cause isn’t part of the 4th Amendment) I’m going to take everything they say with a huge grain of salt.
Emma Zahn
This whole thing is just too Orwellian.
Supposedly something was revealed that has seriously damaged our surveillance capability but the surveillors won’t say what because it might further damage our surveillance capability???
Anybody have a clue as to what that something is? I don’t. I would think people from more repressive countries probably already know more about secret surveillance capabilities than we do.
…
demimondian
In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?”
Let’s take a jaundiced view of the case, OK? On the one had, we have a set of officials who hage lied about the benefits of these programs in that past, whose interests are clearly served by making a case for “damage”, and who are now asking us to take their claims on faith. On the other hand, we have other unnamed individuals whose interests are not served by their claims, and who aren’t being served by their disclosures.
I’m willing to be open-minded zbout the possibility of damage — but given the number of lies we’ve gotten about that so far, I’m demanding real evidence. Negroponte has plenty of time to find a “damaged asset” and demonstrate the damage.
ScottC
I’m not going to accusse them of lying, but if I was a Senator I’d close the doors, chase the reporters out and ask for proof of damage.
CaseyL
DV already said it, but it bears repeating: the non-political appointees, the actual professionals in the NSA – the ones actually qualified to determine whether there was any damage to national security – say there wasn’t any damage.
Goss? Negroponte? Negroponte’s core competency is organizing death squads. Goss is on record as stating he wouldn’t be qualified to work for the CIA if he tried to get a job through regular channels. What is it about these two guys that makes you think they’re qualified to determine a threat to national security?
Seriously. What have they ever done to give you that kind of faith in them?
Dave T.
I don’t think he has ever cared about civil liberties – he sees his job as protecting us, not protecting our liberties.
StupidityRules
What so hard to understand? Osama would had continued to phone his people in the US if someone hadn’t revealed the idea of wiretaps without warrants. Cause they didn’t have any idea of regular wiretaps with warrants since terrorists are just stupid.
Also don’t forget 9/11 is all Tom Clancy’s fault. If he had written ‘Debt of Honor’ the terrorists would never have thought of attacking the US using civilan aircrafts. Cause terrorists are stupid and will never get an idea of their own…
Blue Neponset
DaveT:
I would hope the leader of the free world and a graduate of Yale and Harvard could protect us and our liberties at the same time.
StupidityRules
edit:
“If he hadN’T written ‘Debt of Honor’”
Tractarian
The real danger here is that, in all the discussion about the potential damage of CIA leaks, we’re forgetting about the potential damage of discussing the potential damage of CIA leaks.
Jorge
John,
I understand your concern and if there is a discussion to be had about damage being done to our intelligence community, let’s get on with it. But let’s be sure that in doing so we don’t give anyone a way to weasel out of any criminal wrongdoing.
A democracy should be above spying on its own citizens with out a warrant. A democracy should be above jailing its own citizens indefinitely with out charges. A democracy should be above having secret prisons in foreign countries. A democracy should be above torture. And a democracy should be transparent.
So yes, let’s discuss our intelligence capabilities. But let’s not allow the discussion to become about how much democracy we give up in order to enhance those capabilities. We should not allow the debate to be framed that way.
Cyrus
The source here is three Bush appointees, at least two of whom probably knew about the warrantless eavesdropping program before it became public knowledge. You don’t have to be a close-minded kneejerk Bush-basher to refuse to take their word for it.
As for Goss complaining about CIA secret prisons seeing the light of day? Boo fricking hoo. Legally and ethically they shouldn’t have existed, and while of course it’s impossible to say for sure, I’d be surprised if any practical benefit they produced was worth the national shame when they were revealed, which was inevitable sooner or later. If CIA agents or assets died because of it, I blame the men who created and governed the prisons.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well said.
I do think that I perhaps rushed to judgement with “there was no damage at all” comment, and you were right to point that out, John. If real damage was done I’m willing to listen, but while I am open-minded, I have already made up my mind on the legality of warrentless wiretaps on American citizen’s phones. So technically, if the damage that was done was only done to an illegal program, then I don’t give two shits. The NSA program is illegal.
Pete Guither
I think the problem is that there has been a desire to have this discussion, but it’s been one-sided. For a while, a couple of blogs were daily announcing “Will someone please answer how this revelation endangers national security?” and got no takers.
Nobody, based on the information released, has been able to come up with any legitimate reasons why the information would damage national security (particularly with the administration’s campaign and descriptions of the program).
Those who claim that there’s damage to national security won’t say why, because to do so… would damage national security. According to them, such discussion is not allowed — we just have to take their word for it.
So the people are left either coming to their own conclusion (based on the information they have) that national security was not affected, or trust the administration that there’s some aspect of this program that we have been unable to even imagine, whereas merely letting people know that there is a program at all (without details of the unimaginable aspect) is dangerous to national security. Well, that’s a little disturbing.
It appears that the administration will call for investigations into the leaks on a regular basis to bolster the idea that national security was harmed, but I’d be very surprised if any serious investigation actually happened. It would require telling too much.
Joel
Whatever damage done is almost purely self-inflicted. Perhaps they [the intelligence chiefs] should have thought about the damage done to our democracy, to basic concepts like “due process” and “rule of law” before engaging in such activities.
Pb
John,
Let me translate for you:
Exposing the truth about what we’ve been doing illegally and hiding from the American people and the world has hurt our *poll numbers*! Now people don’t trust us because we lie and do bad things, why did someone have to tell them? Waah!
Hah. Not only was I right, but *come on*… as if they weren’t ‘mistrustful’ of you already. That’s because you have given them ample reason to be, day in and day out.
ppGaz
Yes, and I am inclined not to take their word for it. For two reasons: One, based on their track record, I have no reason to take their word for it. Two, it just doesn’t make sense in the way that an ordinary person can understand. They would have to show me (a) what actual damage was done, and (b) that their own ham-handedness hasn’t caused a lot more damage at every step of the way. In other words, prove their case. I am not willing to take their word for it and I will not take their word for it. Period. I have no reason to trust them and I do not trust them to be straight with me about it.
Slide
So let me get this straight, the same cadre of right wingnuts that didn’t think revealing the indentity of a covert CIA agent working on the proliferation of WMD was any big deal are all upset because the NY Times said we were wiretapping al Qaeda? Huh? I still don’t quite get what was revealed in the NYT’s article or any subsequent discussion, that would not be known by our enemies other than it was done without a warrant.
That brings me to two possible conclusions.
1) saying so is just a political ploy to put those raising questions on wiretapping on the defensive – “helping the enemy” and all that kinda Bush/cheney shit we’ve gotten quite used to over the last 5 years.
or
2) they are doing something that we dont’ know about. Like… listening (by computer) to ALL international communications and then listening (by human) to those communications that set off some bells and whistles. Now what criteria would flag a conversation for human scrutiny? Well, that is the $64,000 question isn’t it?
You know what? On reflection its probably both of the above.
LITBMueller
I wonder if anyone in the committee pointed out to Hayden and/or Goss:
“Sir, you must realize, that if the Administration…your bosses…had not created super secret eavesdropping and detention programs of questionable legality, and had kept this committee properly and fully informed, then this information would not have been leaked, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
“I think instead of blaming leaks, maybe you should look at what sorts of programs you a re creating. Are they of questionable legality? Do they keep other branches of the governnemnt involved for oversight purposes? Are we trampling on American rights and freedoms, or giving the impression we are?
“Maybe if you guys took the time to create better programs, you’d have fewer whistleblowers! They didn’t blow the lids on secret prisons and domestic spying just for fun, you know!”
Blue Neponset
Another point others have touched upon; this whole useless debate we are having about warrantless wiretaps was completely avoidable. If Bush had asked the Republican controlled Congres to change the FISA law to conform to his needs I am sure they would have.
Unrelated side note: Kudos to John if the title of this story is a reference to Neil Young’s ‘The Needle and the Damage Done’. We should have a daily Neil Young reference if you ask me.
Steve
Just another case of the Republicans playing politics with national security. Typical.
TBone
The more I become familiar with the way individual commentors reply on this blog, the more I am convinced that the Left is truly blinded by hate and ideology.
If your views are representative of the current Leftist values, no wonder half the people in this Nation doubt your ability to run it! You’re too willing to pass judgment before you are fully informed, showing how terribly irresponsible you are. Instead of appearing trustworthy and deliberate, you appear childish as you lash out with no other purpose but to discredit your opponent. How is that going to solve anything?
Intentionally compromising classified information is a crime, and it hurts the Nation on many levels. It has long term consequences that will hurt the next administration, whether it be led by Democrat or Republican. It hurts our ability to conduct diplomacy. It puts the lives of our citizens at risk. It puts the lives of our foreign partners at risk. It makes us vulnerable because the enemies of our nation learn our intelligence methods and capabilities. As citizens, we can’t accept unauthorized “leaking” no matter how advantageous it may seem politically at the time…the slippery slope is too dangerous to contemplate. You must focus on the “big picture” here.
Because most people NEVER get the slightest glimpse at what the intelligence community does, they will never fully appreciate how important keeping a secret is. Just because you don’t believe on an emotional level what someone says, doesn’t make it untrue. Don’t dismiss concerns about this topic out of hand, or scoff at the insights of those involved for the purpose of political expediency. You do so at your own peril, and the peril of the nation you try so valiantly to represent with your anger.
FredW
All this is part of the reason that Congress should excercise its overview function. If an opposition Senator on the SSCI comes out and says, in effect, “This is real, behave” then I think people whould accept it as non-political.
Joel
Yeah I was wondering about that too.
AkaDad
In a criminal investigation, any evidence collected illegally, gets tossed out, if I understand the law correctly.
So, if you gain evidence through illegal wiretaps, wouldn’t the subsequent evidence be tossed out as well?
How do you make a case against a potential terrorist, by using illegal wiretaps, if your evidence will probably get tossed?
Am I missing something here?
Ancient Purple
Great! When are you going to be leading the charge to get Rove and everyone else in this administration who leaked Plame’s name to the media under indictment.
I don’t. But I a bit gunshy to give my full faith to the intelligence community when they botched WMD’s and had not a clue that Hamas was going to win the Palestinian elections. I would like to think that Goss’ first duty would be to fix the problems that continue to cause bad intelligence. Instead, he is trying to blame the problem on leaks.
Give me a break.
The Disenfranchised Voter
They aren’t Leftist values, they’re American values.
I suggest you read the FISA law and for once, the Bill of Right. If you need help, check the 4th Amendment.
The program is illegal. If they never instituted an illegal program, we wouldn’t be having this discussion now would we?
Al Maviva
I don’t see how disclosure of these programs and discussion, by leakers, of our intelligence capabilities, could possibly have hurt ongoing operations. Don’t the terrorists expect that we will interrogate them if captured, that we will listen to their phone calls if we can detect them, and that we will try to infiltrate people into their cells? Really, there’s no valid reason that any of our intelligence programs shouldn’t be transparent. Let the sun shine in. It doesn’t put anybody at risk.
And I for one am willing to risk WMD attacks, or even further airline attacks, on our major cities. The risk is low. Even if it wasn’t, sacrificing a few tens of thousands of people here or there, in order to retain our civil liberties, is surely worth it. 25,000 people die in car accidents every year, and I don’t hear anybody arguing that we need to have a Global War on Cars. Yeah, I think I’m starting to agree with Glenn Greenwald. The threat is gravely overblown. Heart disease and traffic accidents pose a much bigger threat than terrorism. So we really ought to do a cost/benefits analysis, and maybe spend all that GWOT money on traffic signals, driver’s ed courses, and doing something to get people to watch their diets. Our real problem in the world may actually be not getting enough fiber.
Mike
Hey TBone, have you looked at the polls recently? Well more than half of the american people doubt the ability of the Shrub to run things. I am going to laugh so hard when most of your Republemming base stays home this time and the Democraps get at least one of the houses back. I only wish you had hung onto DeLay (kinda Frenchy there) a little longer but Big Tobacco Boner will do just as well.
BTW, what about the cheating on the Rethug conference yesterday where more ballots than reps were counted? You guys can’t even stop from cheating yourselves in a PRIVATE SECRET ELECTION? BWWAAAHHAHAAHAHAHA
Pb
TBone,
Heh. This, from TBone, of all people. Let me give you a tip: this is actually how Karl Rove and friends operate–in the shadowy world of baseless smears. Whenever someone starts speaking the truth about something they don’t like or don’t want anyone to hear, think about, or repeat, they smear them, in the nastiest possible terms, and it’s always a lie or a set-up.
We, however, have seen this administration at work for several years, we know how they operate, and we have seen the records of the various people involved, sometimes spanning decades, and therefore we have a lot of facts at our disposal to make an informed decision. And we’d be happy to share all those facts and all that reasoning with you as well, if you would just listen, which you won’t, because you’re truly blinded by hate and ideology.
You’re too willing to pass judgment before you are fully informed, showing how terribly irresponsible you are. Instead of appearing trustworthy and deliberate, you appear childish as you lash out with no other purpose but to discredit your opponent. How is that going to solve anything?
kl
Not much, and not well.
Jorge
Tbone –
I really do appreciate your point. But to me what you are describing is not a democracy. It is a country in which the government can do whatever it wants with out fear of being exposed. Bush has decided that the does not over site from the judicial or legislative branches to engage in certain activities. That is wrong. And with out whistle blowers, the illegal activities would continue unchecked.
The people who put the country in danger aren’t the ones who exposed the illegal activiies, it is the people who decided to create secret, unconstitutional programs and bypass oversight. And informing two Senators then telling them that they’ll be committing a crime if they even take notes much less talk about the program is not oversight. I categorically reject the argument that exposing unconstitutional behavior by the executive branch somehow endangers our national security.
And this is what I mean about the way the debate is framed. I disagree that the debate is about how much of our constitution we are willing to jettison in order to protect ourselves. There is nothing unique about the US being in danger from a ruthless enemy willing to kill civilians. We all know that the soviets killed many times more civilians than even the Nazis. Luckily, this enemy does not have enough nuclear bombs to blow up the world 10 times over.
Steve
Snark is not really a meaningful substitute for actual facts. If someone were to “leak” the mere fact that we try to infiltrate terrorist cells, without a single detail about where, when, or how, would you really make the case that national security was damaged?
…at which point he proceeded to pass judgment on the rest of us.
The point here is that the administration and its supporters have been given the opportunity, time and time again, to tell us how national security possibly could have been compromised by the revelation that we sometimes don’t get a totally secret warrant from a court that approves 99.9% of all warrant applications before we spy on people.
It seems rather implausible to us, you see, that the terrorists were out there thinking “they can’t possibly be spying on me, they would need a totally secret warrant from a court that approves 99.9% of all warrant applications, and for some reason I’m very confident they don’t have that!” But look, we’re open-minded. We’re willing to hear you make the case that this leak damaged national security – Greenwald and Atrios, among others, have repeatedly invited the right blogosphere to explain it to us.
But no one has been able to make even a glimmer of a case. All we get is snark along the lines of “gee, I’m sure it could never be harmful to reveal secret information.” Considering this comes from the same people who have collectively spent a total of 10 seconds assessing whether the Plame leak damaged national security before concluding that it couldn’t have possibly done so (because, you know, it was public knowledge that Joe Wilson had a WIFE!), the conclusion is obvious. The right-wingers have no case to make, so they’re just going to yell a lot.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Anything in particular that you’d like to take issue with?
Or do you just enjoy making petty and useless posts?
Pb
Steve,
Yep, I just wish that more people noticed.
“If the law is on your side, you pound on the law. If the facts are on your side, you pound on the facts. If neither are on your side, you pound on the table.”
The Disenfranchised Voter
See what I was talking about?
Al–in that ever so great and passive sarcastic way–just tried to frame the issue was “You’re either for warrentless wiretapping American citizens or you’re against spying on terrorists.
It’s bullshit, and it should be completely dismissed.
I think the threat is real Al. I just don’t think breaking the law is the best way to go about combating that threat.
Perry Como
Al made a funny. Tee hee.
The Disenfranchised Voter
*was=as
I swear I’m going to start previewing.
Pb
TDV,
I actually remember after 9/11, a few people made those callous arguments (and generally got shouted down). “Only 3,000 people? That’s not that many compared to a lot of things!” Sadly, and for obvious reasons, I bet more than a few Iraqis now agree with that line of reasoning as well. :(
Steve
Al’s comment is particularly incoherent in that he’s smart enough to know that virtually everything we do to combat terrorism is premised upon some kind of cost-benefit analysis. Why don’t we inspect every shipment coming into our ports? Why don’t we double or triple security at every nuclear facility? And so forth. There are a zillion things we could do to make ourselves safer, and presumably the only reason we haven’t done them is because the costs outweigh the perceived benefits.
Even the Iraq War was a cost-benefit analysis, although the costs were understated and the benefits are an article of faith.
The idea that terrorism is such an overarching danger that we shouldn’t even bother to evaluate the magnitude of the risk may sound like a macho attitude, but we prove it false with every passing day. Obviously there’s a policy decision as to which countermeasures are worth it and which ones aren’t.
TBone
Pb et al,
Like I said…the more I read your comments, the more I see how blinded you are.
The program ISN’T illegal. If it was, then where are the indictments? Show me any case law or official legal judgment that says anything the NSA did in this case was illegal. Show me where they violated FISA. Do you even know what the FISA is all about? Don’t just spew some more BS, SHOW ME. Tell me exactly what you think they did that was so wrong? And please spare me the link to the NY Times. I bet you can’t…know why? Because YOU DON’T KNOW.
You are UNINFORMED and jumping to conclusions because you are politically blinded. Do you know the difference between a “wiretap” and the kind of collection NSA does? Probably not. You said,
I didn’t mean to “smear” anyone in my post. I said you (some on the Left) are blinded by hate and ideology. Are folks on the Right blinded by the same? Yes, but we aren’t talking about them are we? We are talking about the people who commented on John’s post. Do you see any Republican hate-mongers in here slamming what the Intel heads said? No. Why? Because their intent is not to slam the administration for the sake of slamming the administration…that is your intent. That seems pretty clear to me.
You are uninformed and jumping to conclusions because the facts are not in the public domain. How can you even pretend to know the reality of this situation if you don’t have a security clearance? Anything coming out of your mouth would be pure speculation and/or acceptance of rumor. You “know how they operate”? What does that mean? Are you one of those paranoid conspiracy theorists? No, you are a knee-jerk reaction Liberal who is talking out of his ass. Like I said, you sound like a bunch of little kids on the playground spreading rumors and lies about the kid who stole your lunch money. Then instead of facing the issue at hand, you divert and point at the Plame situation…why can’t you just stick to the argument at hand, instead of sounding like some dysfunctional partner in a bad marriage. “You didn’t wash the dishes!” “Yes I did, look there they are on the drainboard.” “Well, you must have used a dirty sponge.” “No, we just bought new sponges, Dear.” “Well, they must be dirty because you never wash dishes correctly.” And so the story goes… Nya nya.
Mr Furious
Excellent point. If they had gone through proper channels, nobody would ever have cared.
“If Woody had gone straight to the police…” *
*Obscure Woody Woodpecker reference. Anybody else remember that one? Pops into my head whenever posing a hypothetical “if [somebody] had [blah, blah, blah…/”
Blue Neponset
That is the point this particular Republican-hate monger was trying to make. How can you say a leak damaged the eficacy of a a specific intelligence operation if no one in the public knows the details of said intelligence operation?
Steve
Bill Arnold
TBone,
As citizens, we can’t accept unauthorized “leaking” no matter how advantageous it may seem politically at the time…the slippery slope is too dangerous to contemplate. You must focus on the “big picture” here.
There is a very good case to be made that the NSA-wiretapping and CIA-torture leaks are leaks of programs that the U.S. should not be engaged in. In other words, is is possible, and IMO likely, that they are leaks by righteous people rather than agenda-driven leaks. In other words, perhaps these leaks wouldn’t have happened if the programs didn’t exist or were more in line with American values. There is still a case to be made that leaks are a slippery slope, agreed. There are plenty of behaviours that the US has engaged in in secret in the past, e.g. CIA-engineered coups, that have returned to haunt us in later years. Sometimes the pendulum swings too far, e.g. when signals intelligence is gutted for reasons like “gentlemen don’t read other peoples’ mail”.
OCSteve
Best summary I have seen (long read but worth it).
Has the New York Times Violated the Espionage Act?
By Gabriel Schoenfeld. (HT: Dean)
Yes – the Times is guilty of a crime.
Yes – there has been damage to national security.
No – the leakers are not whistleblowers, they are criminals.
This is the best summary and analysis I have seen and the final word for me.
kl
Just trying to fit in!
srv
And no evidence.
ppGaz
Tbone is probably a troll or a DougJ character, or a spoof.
But let’s say for the sake of discussion, he’s serious.
My response? Fuck him. The idea that a rational and reasonable response to a fucked up set of circumstances should be dismissed as “hate” is just pure bullshit. It’s the kind of browbeating nonsense that people who don’t drink the Bush Kool-Aid are just sick to death of.
You know what, Mr. TBone? If that kind of commentary is all you got, you should just GFY and find another hobby. I’m not going to be talked to that way, by you or your cousin Darrell or anybody else.
Get lost.
The Disenfranchised Voter
And with comments like those, I can see that your intent is just to smear any critic of this extremist Administration.
I don’t give a shit about D’s and R’s, I give a shit about the Constitution and the law. I have read FISA and I know what the hell I’m talking about. The argument that past administration did this too, look at Clinton and Carter’s executive orders” is bullshit. Both Clinton and Carter’s executive order explicitly say that if Foreign Intelligence gathering happens to involve an American person, in anyway whatsoever, the AG must then get a warrant to do so.
I’m not attacking Bush because hes a Republican, I’m attacking him because his shitting on our fucking Constitution. The mere fact that you think somehow valuing our founding document isn’t really important anymore “because this is a post-9/11 world” is fucking scary to say the least, and it shows you for the pussy that you are frankly because Bin Laden and his merry band of suicide bombers have scared you so bad, that you’re willing to shred the Consititution.
Now kindly, Fuck off sir.
Steve
Sure didn’t see any evidence of that in the article you linked.
As for whether the leakers and the Times are guilty of a crime, hey, they might well be. That’s a risk that the free press takes. We really don’t know, since your author skipped entirely over the question of whether the NSA program is legal, choosing to parrot the administration’s arguments and move right on to the question of the press’s culpability. Only you can’t answer the second question without addressing the first.
Any analysis that starts with the completely absurd assumption that the NSA program was limited to eavesdropping on conversations between Americans and terrorists overseas, just because that’s all the administration has admitted to, is unlikely to lead to any useful conclusions.
farmgirl
Tbone sez:
Will the opinion of 14 constitutional scholars and former government officials be of interest? They can quote you chapter and verse.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Haunt us in later years? Try our interventionist and sometimes illegal actions in overthrowing other countries is the catalyst for the terrorism that we are dealing with right now.
And how do we win this “war on terror”? We do it by invading other countries and overthrowing their government.
If we would just get the hell out of their countries these extremists would more than likely leave us the hell alone. A strong national defense is what it needed. Not an aggressive international offense.
The choas in the Middle East is the Middle East’s problem, not ours. And we certainly are not going to “win their hearts and minds” by bombing their countries and killing their civilians accidentally in the name of “spreading freedom and democracy”.
HH
TBone’s blog: “A Soldier’s Perspective on the Military, the War in Iraq, politics, and other salient topics”
And if he were arguing for the other side, he’d be hailed as a war hero and any of his critics would be accused of questioning his patriotism… Since he’s not with the left though, he is a troll to be ignored or cursed.
HH
“You don’t have to be a close-minded kneejerk Bush-basher to refuse to take their word for it.”
But it damn sure helps…
HH
And of course Honest Joe Wilson can be trusted when he says national security…
HH
…is endangered…
Pb
TBone,
If I spy on you without your knowledge, is that legal? According to you, it is, just so long as you never find out. Is that the Republican mantra, “it’s ok just so long as you don’t get caught”? Pathetic.
Fascinating. If you really want to know why, then why don’t want a link to information that might inform you, and why am I entirely not surprised. And yes, I do know about FISA, but you know who knows even more about it? Federal Judge James Robertson, who resigned from the FISA court over this.
Well, it’s too late now, isn’t it? You probably don’t even notice anymore, it’s like second nature to you.
Because they’re partisan syncophants who don’t care whether or not any American’s constitutional rights are violated by their President, because he can do no wrong, despite all evidence to the contrary. Imprisoning an American citizen without trial for three years? He must have been a terorist. Blowing the CIA’s cover? They must be just backbiting liberals. Unconstitutionally arresting people for exercising their First Amendment rights? They had it coming. Questioning the President? TREASON!
A-ha! You aren’t cleared to know about any illegal activities, therefore, there aren’t any! And if there were any, then you couldn’t talk about them!
Unfortunately for you and your fellow apologists, the word is out on this one already, and the people who do know what’s going on–the few responsible adults left in the bureaucracy–blew the whistle on it. And that’s why we know about it.
Err, yeah. Like what, the fact that he’s a bully, and he steals people’s lunch money? You sound like that bully’s sidekick, defending such reprehensible actions with nothing more than “Yeah!”, “So?”, and “Nuh-uh!”, to fulfill your desires for acceptance and superiority without letting pesky ‘facts’ or ‘conscience’ enter into it.
Steve
I’m glad you agree that the burden is on the party who claims national security has been endangered. Now explain to me how it was endangered by the revelation that the wiretapping which was previously done only with secret warrants is sometimes done without secret warrants.
Ancient Purple
Brilliant logic there.
Remember, folks, everything you do is completely legal until you get indicted.
kl
pp, you should just assign this to a hotkey.
Hee!
Blue Neponset
HH,
How did the leaking of the existence of Bush’s ‘warantless survellence program’ hurt the intelligence gathering capability of the United States? I am not trying to be obtuse by asking you that. Even if you think the answer to that question is obvious please answer it because, for some reason, I don’t see the answer as clearly as you apparently do.
ppGaz
Wrong, that’s a lie.
He’s to be ignored or cursed because he presumes to start his commentary by dismissing rational opinion with which he happens to disagree as “hate.”
It isn’t hate, and it’s far past time for those who don’t have any respect for this corrupt and inept government to stop letting the other side get away with that kind of crap.
It isn’t hate, and it is not necessary to tolerate that kind of talk. People who don’t agree with him aren’t fools or traitors or weaklings or communists or any of the other standard dismissive terms that people like him tend to use.
Either cut that crap out, or face the reality that every thread poisoned with that bullshit is going to turn into what you see right here … a discussion of that poison.
Ancient Purple
Just remember that when Fitzgerald issues his first indictment in this case, it will be against Joe Wilson for outting his own wife as a CIA agent.
Oh, wait…
Pooh
I think Tbone might need to take the dead kitten survey. Just so we know what we are dealing with. Of course, the answers to that survey certainly harm national security, so maybe he shouldn’t.
LITBMueller
TBone in Bizarro World:
Slide
Is everyone on the right these days bedwetting cowards afraid of their own shadow or moronic imbeciles that wouldn’t know a rational argument if it hit them in the ass? Or both? Al Maviva? Since you seem to have both characteristics perhaps you would like to answer?
srv
The Disenfranchised Voter
Exactly, Exactly, EXACTLY!
That is what pissed me off about his post. Well said ppG.
Jorge
T-Bone,
The U.S. Senate is currently looking into the issue. They are having hearings. Therefore, there is an investigation goin on right now over the legality of the issue.
But the reality is that I don’t trust that Alberto Gonzales, Frist or Boehner will really do the right thing here. Now, I could be wrong and heck, I’d love to be wrong about this one. But a lack of indictments, impeachments and convictions isn’t going to make me think that this behavior is legal. My guess is that we’ll have hearings in the Senate and there will be a partisan split on the issue. Heck, maybe Luger and Lieberman will switch sides but that’s about it.
kl
Not to be judgmental, but I do believe that is a bit of a leading question.
Could you make a list of things that don’t piss you off? Here’s half a post-it.
Perry Como
I am! Dontya know that terrorists are everywhere! We need to trust the government! Blind trust of an authoritarian government has always been the hallmark of conservatism.
ppGaz
{ }
ppGaz
Amen, brother. Amen. If you can’t trust your government …. who can you trust?
kl
And if you can’t discern blatant sarcasm, what can you discern?
Pooh
“I’m from the government, I’m here to help. And by help, I mean please come with me to an undisclosed location for an indeterminate period of time for undeclared reasons.”
Steve
Just add this thread to the list of places where the right-wingers have been asked to explain what actual harm could have occurred as a result of this disclosure, and have come up completely empty. They do yell a lot, though.
Pooh
Well Steve, in seriousness the government has been hurt in the same way Sherron Watkins hurt Enron by coming forward. Of course she doesn’t get called a traitor against Enron. Or maybe she did, yet it is still Kenny Boy and Skilling on trial this week.
It’s a neat trick to say that it’s not the people doing violence to the Constitution, but the people talking about the people doing violence to the Constitution that are to blame. If we’d all just shut up like good worker bees. Hey look! Cindy Sheehan! Shiny…
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well you would be on that list. Because your lame attempts to irrtate me are actually doing the opposite.
I’m kind of honored that you are specifically paying me so much attention.
Thanks.
The Disenfranchised Voter
irritate*
Krista
Where?!? Ooh, I wanna see!
kl
Obviously!
Cyrus
As boring and repetitive as these comparisons get, it seems relevant… would you have taken Al Gore’s word that Clinton “did not have sex with that woman?” What about the word of Dee Dee Myers? Or George Stephanopoulos? Probably not. They have personal allegiance to the man accused of the crime and they owe him a lot, and if the truth comes out their jobs and/or political careers in general might be in danger. They have every reason to lie. So unless they swear under oath, or collaborate existing evidence or something, you would completely ignore their general assurance of Clinton’s innocence.
Why, then, are you so willing, nay eager, to take the word of Bush appointees that Bush’s critics have harmed national security, without any further evidence? It’s a simple question. If either side of this debate is showing a close-minded kneejerk reaction, it’s not the side that’s asking for more than “trust me”.
ppGaz
Exactly.
Darrell
Yes, because those who violated their secrecy oath in telling the NY Times about a classified, legal program, are noble truth tellers like Sherron Watkins, shining the light of truth on the shredding of our constitution by BushHitler.
Darrell
Which in and of itself would seem to indicate media bias, no?
Darrell
Well if nothing else, it served as a helpful reminder, a wake-up call to the terrorists that we are monitoring every scrap of communication going in and out of the US
Theseus
It seems to me that there is a reason that these programs are SECRET and CLASSSIFIED. Your question is inadvertantly amusing. In order to satisfy the hysteria and paranoia of many of the critics of these Gestapo like programs, one would probably have to divulge exaclty what is is they do, how they do it, their methods, etc…in which case, whether the program worked or not is irrelevant for it would be useless anyways. So reveal everything to satiate a position which, BTW, is not supported by a majority of people OR or take your lumps and salvage what you can and be seen as erring on the side of caution against an enemy which the majority of Americans see as a grave threat. Either way, this is a winner for Republicans and another easy way to label Dems in general as “soft on terrorism” and national security. To quote the Bullmouse “Here is how it is framed – Republicans may be overly aggressive on the side of fighting terrorists while Democrats are overly sensitive to the concerns of the ACLU. Who do you think wins this debate?” So bravo. The GOP is sinking and you guys keep throwing them lifelines. The GOP can “politicise” national security because the Dems keep letting them with their own stupidity.
LITBMueller
How much harm? Well, according to FBI Dir. Mueller (no relation!), there couldn’t have been too much:
And, here is the best part of the article: Pat Roberts proving why he couldn’t provide oversight of the Administration if he tried – because he drank the Kool Aid:
MORON! Faris wanted to take down the bridge with blowtorches!!!! Which, of course, would have been hilarious if he had actually tried it.
And, here’s the kicker:
So, Pat! Wake up! You have got to stop believing the spin and do your damn job!
srv
Ah, the media is supposed to know what the “actual” damage is supposed to be. Well, given that Goss implies something specific, and Hayden says the exact opposite, they’re really making your case for you.
I’ll take this as your surrender on this debate.
Pooh
Senator Strawman strikes again.
ppGaz
—/ a little drama
{ sound of phone ringing }
D: Hello?
JC: Hey D! I need your help, man.
D: SSSssssup?
JC: Gotta NSA thread going over at the Juice, and the lefties are kicking ass and taking names. I need some reinforcements, somebody to get in there and spam the thing with Bushmonkey talk and at least get me some balance.
D: I’m there, dog! Give me 5 minutes …..
The Disenfranchised Voter
Fuck Bullmooose. He is an ex-McCain aide, and now a DLC hack. He has lost a HUGE amount of crediblity with his posts about this issue. Talk to anyone at the Moderate Voice if you don’t believe me.
The guy is a NeoCon obviously. I couldn’t care less what he thinks.
Darrell
Stawman? You mean to say you didn’t compare the leakers of NSA’s classified program with Enron whisteblower Sherron Watkins?
yep, that’s exactly what you did
The Disenfranchised Voter
HEY!
The Senator is here. Senator Darrell, it’s good to see you around. In fact, I was wondering if you had any idea where Senator Cornyn was?
Do you? I know your a “fan” of his work.
Darrell
Yes of course that’s what was happening. You lefties were destroying the opposition with your erudite arguments, forcing them to surrender to you righteous truth warriors on the left. Reality based community, right?
TBone
You guys are sooooo funny. I am not a troll BTW…hehe…if you look at my first post, it wasn’t inflammatory unless you are very, very thin skinned.
However, I am terribly amused at how you kooks launch into a frenzied circle jerk anytime someone says something you oppose. You’re like predictable little toys…wind you up and watch you spin out of control…lol
Your party is doomed to failure because of people like you.
Lines
Yeah, TBone, you’re someone that definately has so much creditibility that your mere name sparks fear in the hearts of world leaders.
Hack.
Pooh
Let’s go to the replay
Pretty non-inflammatory, you got us.
Steve
Let’s take a quick look…
It’s truly amazing how right-wingers can criticize us for a lack of civil discourse, and in the very same breath say we are engaging in a frenzied circle jerk, call someone a “knee-jerk reaction Liberal who is talking out of his ass,” and accuse us of sounding like either little kids on a playground or a spouse in a dysfunctional marriage. This is civil discourse?
I don’t understand how a human being can possibly manage to entertain these contradictory thoughts simultaneously. It’s like you’ve listened to Rush and Ann Coulter call for the death of liberals so many times, that you seriously don’t understand that the insults you’re spewing aren’t merely ordinary conversation.
Pooh
Beat you to the punch for once, Steve…
The Disenfranchised Voter
Shouldn’t you be off plagiarizing someone–again–instead of attempting to write your own thoughts Senator?
Lines
If any of you can stomach Tbone’s webpage, you’ll find he’s trying to out-LFG the Little Fasicist Footballs. Hatred of all things not-Tbone dominates his site, with little in the way of understanding or compassion, I find little reason to rise to any challenge that Tbone may dish out. His inability to understand the differences in cultures and religions and only denegrate those that don’t agree with him 100% makes him pathetic, not dangerous.
Tbone, what makes you think you understand the left? Your amazing grasp of everything to the Right of Glenn Reynolds and your average Freeper?
Darrell
Well DV, that settles everything, doesn’t it? You really seem to know what you’re talking about
Darrell
By all means, don’t respond to any of the valid points he made, only purely personal attacks.. that’s soo convincing
The Disenfranchised Voter
Darrell you were fucking caught plagiarizing and then called us dishonest for catching you.
You have zero crediblity. Just save face and leave.
Darrell
Disenfranchised whackjob has spoken. All hail
Cyrus
Of course, how could I forget. Absence of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy. Fox Mulder told me so.
Terrorists are a threat to the country comparable to what Soviet Russia was, and Bush’s steadfast resolve is the only thing that keeps them from installing shari’a law around the world… but they’d forget they could be eavesdropped on if we didn’t remind them. Right.
Wait a second, we’re monitoring every scrap of communication into and out of the country? I thought this was a narrowly targeted thing that only affected terrorists and their accomplices. Are you calling Bush a liar?
Ridiculous. I’m not asking them to go public with EVERYTHING. But at the moment, we have not been told about one single a time these contentious programs have helped, or their leaking has hurt. No years-old plot foiled, no credit given to warrantless eavesdropping in one of the many captures that have been publicized (unless you count LITBMueller’s Pat Roberts quote referred to above and, oh yeah, discredited), no specific plots or arrests mentioned with all identifying details left out. Why won’t they even do that?
I’m deeply moved by your concern for the Democrats’ electoral chances, my friend. But I doubt your support for the program is the majority opinion at all. And even if it is, I can’t say I care. Does rolling over and playing dead for Bush really look any better than being overly sensitive to the ACLU? And regardless – I prefer my representatives to be aware of what’s right and what’s legal, not just what’s popular. Your opinion differs, apparently.
OT – speaking of the “Bullmouse”, I thought those Pajamas Media ads with the quotes were funny, but not in the way they meant. I always took the quotes in exactly the opposite way. “Where else can you read opinions written in the third person by an antlered mammal?” Yup, that’s exactly the level of gravity I want my news treated with. “Opinion I can handle, it’s bias and advocacy masquerading as reporting that have to stop.” Um, which one is PJMedia supposed to be, again? [Both only quoted roughly from memory.]
Davebo
Wow, after Glenn literally bithc slapped you about a half dozen times I guess you had to agree with him sooner or later.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Did you think that one up all by yourself, or did you plagiarize that as well?
Darrell
DV wrote:
With your security clearance and ‘deep’ understanding of the legal issues involved, that declaration settles everything as far as I’m concerned. All hail
RobR
Thankfully, you’ve taught us that all we need is Google, free time and sarcasm to determine the right interpretation of law and policy. All hail. And thank you for hailing me!
Pooh
PoTD nominee
Darrell
It would be most helpful if you would point us to where I made any such interpretation.
DV’s authoritative declarations are all I need
RobR
Sorry; got one of those job things to do and not much free time. It would be most helpful if you could do that research on all our behalfs. Just pretend I said, “B-b-b-b-ut Darrell lies!” and go nuts.
HH
“‘he is a troll to be ignored or cursed.’
Wrong, that’s a lie.
He’s to be ignored or cursed because…”
The Al Franken school of debate ladies and gentlemen… the opposition can’t merely disagree, they have to be liars, even when they’re pointing out a fact. He was ignored and cursed and treated as a “troll,” yet in other cases those with any military background whatsoever who bash Bush are free to say anything they like, lest their critics be accused of “questioning their patriotism.” But I forgot the second most-overused term from the left, “Liar.”
HH
“you’ve listened to Rush and Ann Coulter call for the death of liberals so many times”
Or did you listen to George Galloway, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan praise the insurgents and bash the troops again?
Not that you would entertain contradictory thoughts simultaneously, mind you.
Steve
Apparently the Senator’s staff has the day off. Here is your pointer:
It’s legal because you say it is, but shame on anyone who says it’s illegal without presenting a mountain of legal arguments that you would ignore anyway.
ppGaz
You’re the liar. The reference was to the call for “ignoring”, not to whether someone was in fact ignored.
Are you going to assert that any particular poster here is being “ignored” at any particular time? Are you a fucking mind reader?
Get off your high horse and come down to the world of reality, asshole. Cut the crap.
Steve
Which are the contradictory thoughts?
Of course some people on the Left say things I wouldn’t want to hear at the dinner table. But they don’t typically turn around two seconds later and lecture the Right about their obligation to engage in civil discourse, which is the contradiction I was highlighting. Once again:
The Disenfranchised Voter
I don’t need deep clearence to view the FISA Law and certainly not the 4th Amendment. Bush admitted that he was warrantless wiretaping American citizen’s phones that were making international calls.
ppGaz
Try to stay focussed, Darrell. If you start monitoring and trying to manage who is laughing at you, and keeping the conversation straight at the same time, you are going to get all tangled up and fall down and hurt yourself.
ImJohnGalt
Waitaminit. Darrell ends two posts in the thread with “All hail”.
Same phrase. No final punctuation. Is it possible that he’s now cutting and pasting his own posts?
Pooh
He’s probably got a jingle bank of insults Macroed.
“I’ll give em an F4, two F7’s and finish it off with an F2. That’ll show the moonbats I mean business”
Perry Como
It can never be said enough, true conservatives trust the government no matter what. Especially a large Federal government that has few checks on executive power. These are long held conservative beliefs. To suggest otherwise means you are a Bush basher.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hahah. Priceless.
Definitely a contender for PotD…
Darrell
Because you can’t be a civil libertarian and support Bush’s NSA program at the same time, right? I mean it is obvious Bush is is trampling the constitution with this program. Everyone can see that
DougJ
This all bullshit, this so-called scandal about domestic wire tapping. First of all, Clinton was tapping everything that moved. He was also spying on all of us.
One word, liberal bitches: Travelgate. How do you like them apples? Someone was fired from the White House travel office. Maybe because he was doing a bad job, maybe for political reasons. No one is sure. But the fact remains: some one lost his job. All you’ve lost is the ability to ever have another conversation without the NSA listening to every word you say. It’s a small price to pay for keeping the country safe.
DougJ
I’d say post of the year. It’s funny because it could easily be true.
BadTux
Wow, what a lot of snark in this thread!
For the record: there are no revelations in the leaks. The surveillance being done via the Bush wiretaps is not unusual at all, I simply assumed that it was being done, and I’m sure the terrorists assumed it was being done too and reacted accordingly. The things the leaks “revealed” about intelligence methods and surveillance are all common knowledge amongst those of us in the privacy and computer security field, even those of us who never served in any capacity within the NSA. Indeed, according to security folks I know who do have former NSA cred, the general consensus is that those of us out in private industry have pretty much matched the NSA when it comes to spy technology, though we use it to, for example, spy on call center workers to make sure they’re handling calls rather than talking to their girlfriends, rather than to listen for signs of terrorism.
The only thing — the *ONLY* thing — revealed which was not previously public record, is the fact that the Bush Administration was doing all of this without a warrant from the FISA court.
Which is a piece of administrivia of importance to those who support rule of law, but irrelevant to terrorists, who don’t care whether Bush has a warrant or not to spy on them.
In short, this is just more lies from the Bush Administration, much like Bush’s lie in the State of the Union address that his administration was embarking upon a renewed alternative energy push to reduce the nation’s dependence upon foreign oil — only one day before layoffs at the national lab researching the very alternative energy programs that Bush was touting. There was nothing — NOTHING — revealed here about intelligence methods that was not already public knowledge.
– Badtux the Spy Penguin
Perry Como
Actually, this should be the PotD. Let’s try that same logic on some other situations:
Because you can’t be a gay rights supporter and hate fags at the same time, right?
Because you can’t be an NRA supporter and support the “Assault Weapons Ban”, right?
Because you can’t be a furry and dislike yiffing, right?
Perry Como
I wonder if there’s a WordPress plug-in for post of the day? Darrel deserves it. It’s a 90% perfect post. All it needed was a: “No wonder the Democrats can’t win elections”.
Darrell
Yes, that’s exactly it. If the govt takes reasonable steps to monitor terrorists, that’s against everything civil libertarians stand for
Perry Como
Wiretaps are necessary to stop the manimals. Who will protect you from the furries at the doorstep?
Pb
Darrell,
You can’t even be civil, let alone a libertarian.
Yeppers.
That’d be a good start–then maybe we could have prevented 9/11? Sounds good to me. Maybe they should beef up their translation services, and actually listen when their agents and intelligence services warn them.
However, I’ve seen nothing to suggest that this government has any desire to take “reasonable steps” to do damn near anything, and their piss-poor track record clearly shows the disastrous results of that policy of recklessness.
Pooh
Do reasonable steps include going to Congress to change a law that may or may not be outdated? If we involve Congress in National Security, the Chuck Norri Centaurs win.
We must ban the manimals we have, not the manimals we wish we had.
Steve
As if the FISA court wouldn’t give a warrant in a heartbeat to anyone who was merely taking “reasonable steps to monitor terrorists.” Yet, the Bushbots can’t get their heads around the idea that their favorite President just might be lying to them. Nope, “reasonable steps to monitor terrorists” it is!
Darrell
As neither you nor I know the details of this surveillance, it is very likely that the volume of data would make obtaining warrants impractical. You don’t have to be a “Bushbot” to see that. But I get your point that “Bush lied”, although it’s unclear just what he lied about. But feel free to blather on
Also, if there is no dispute that the President has the authority to monitor foreign terrorists without warrant, why should he have to suddenly obtain warrants if they receive phone calls from Phoenix? And everything the President and VP have said indicate (contrary to earlier statements from you) that this program is limited to international communications.. although one end of that international communication may be in the US.
Steve
The FISA court has approved over 18,000 warrants. How many thousands of additional warrants do you think Bush’s program requires, and what is your basis for saying so?
Obviously, there is a dispute. Why choose this hill to die on, when it’s trivially easy to obtain a warrant, and Congress is more than eager to loosen FISA if you ask it to?
Since you are so good with cut-and-paste, maybe you could find those earlier statements by me where I said purely domestic communications were being monitored. What I recall saying is that the surveillance involved domestic TARGETS.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I can prove Bush lied. Just not about the usual charge. I do think he deliberately misled us into the Iraq War, but that is harder to prove.
This one is much easier.
Bush has admitted that he authorized the warrantless wiretapping program for the NSA shortly after the World Trade Center attacks and this program continues to this day.
And here is what Bush said while this program was ongoing:
Bush undoubtedly knew that what he was saying at the time was not true since it was he who authorized wiretapping without a court order shortly after the WTC attacks.
Now, since you Bush apologists are so utterly predictable in your arugments, I’ll bet you were about to post “well Bush was talking about the Patriot Act, not the NSA”…
However I would like to point out the fact that Bush said the words any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap. The keey word there being “anytime”. Therefore, the argument that he was only talking about the PAT ACT, has no weight.
Tada!
Darrell
yeah, over a 27 year time period. It’s not difficult to imagine today, with cell phones, internet, fax, VOIP etc, that FISA would be more than overwhelmed if the NSA had to obtain a FISA warrant each and every time communication came back and forth between foreign suspects and US locations. No wild-eyed speculation needed to see that
I don’t know about any dying on hills, but as I stated already, it’s doubtful that it would be practical to have to obtain warrants when likely dealing with very large volumes of communications.
In addition to that, because the President has a reasonable case to make.. and the case is that it’s within his responsibility to monitor suspected foreign terrorists without warrant, and that authority shouldn’t change just because some of those communications are coming to or from the US. I don’t think most people would see that as out of line
I recall that was what you said too. However, recent statements by Bush and Cheney say the NSA program deals only with international communications when the target is foreign terrorists
If the target was domestic, it makes sense that surveillance would fall under the purview of the FBI, not NSA.. unless you have evidence to the contrary
CaseyL
The Bushistas would be good for laughs if it wasn’t the Constitution they’re using for toilet paper after each of their Loose Stool of Terror shit-splats.
I have to wonder what they’re going to do for a love object when Little Boots finally leaves office. Transfer their allegiance automatically to whichever jackbooted thug the GOP nominates next?
If Bush does throw off the last wisps of legitimacy and decide to stay in the WH past January 2009, I fully expect his sycophants to applaud that as well.
Hell, if he announced that he was suspending elections indefinitely, they’d dance in the streets.
Bushistas are traitors. Pure, plain and simple.
Pb
Darrell,
I entirely don’t understand this line of argument–are you saying it’s ok for the President to break the law because it wouldn’t be practical to obey it, because of the sheer *number of times* he was going to break the law? Help me out here people, does this make any sense to anyone else? Is there some legal precedent for this? Like, was there some guy out there who murdered millions of people and then got off because the court realized it couldn’t handle all the paperwork?
Darrell
This passes for deep thought on the left.
“Loose Stool of Terror Shit-Splats”.. man, you are speaking truth to power
Steve
It’s hard for me to accept that there are just thousands and thousands and thousands of Americans who are on the phone with al-Qaeda, and I don’t see how the President could honestly describe this as a “limited program” if the net was being cast that wide.
The ultimate goal here is oversight. I have no problem with surveillance of terrorists, but the point of oversight is to make sure that only surveillance of terrorists is going on. And it’s really hard to believe that there’s just so many thousands of warrantless wiretaps each year that there’s no possible mechanism for providing the needed oversight, so I guess we have to leave it all up to the shift supervisor at NSA.
Keep in mind, that when Sen. DeWine offered to modernize FISA and loosen up the requirements, the administration took the position that there was no need. Again, if Congress is willing to give you whatever you need, why would you refuse just so you can stand on the principle that Congress is irrelevant? The most likely answer is that they were doing something that no oversight body would approve of.
Darrell
The President has the authority to monitor suspected foreign enemies WITHOUT warrant. The President asserts that his authority to monitor these foreign suspects without warrant does not go away just because one end of the communication may be in the US. What an obscene power grab, huh?
Perry Como
That’s just your blind Bush hatred. Trust the government.
Pooh
Darrell you have for once presented a cogent argument. However, that argument suggests that ammending FISA would be prudent, not that ignoring it is ok.
Unless you are Dick Posner (activist judging anyone?) and choose your policy result and then look at the law, you go to war with the laws you have not the laws you wish you had. Until you, (wait for it) go to congress and change the law. Instead of flashing back to Judge Dredd, declaring “I am the law” and doing it anyway.
I’m pretty open to being convinvced that expanding the NSA’s ability under FISA, with proper safeguards in place, is a wise course of action. But you have to eat your veggies before you get to eat dessert.
Darrell
Well, first of all, this is a country of almost 300 million people, so having 10 or 20 thousand here communicating back in forth between suspected terrorists via email, cell, phone or whatever does not strike me as unreasonable. But if those 10 or 20 thousand communicated several times a month via email and phone to foreign suspects overseas, the number of warrants would be unmanageable by FISA.. judging by their past numbers. Second, there is no evidence this program is limited to phone calls. I would speculate that it would involve emails, faxes, VOIP and other communication technologies. Third, I never heard the President speak about a “limited” program in the context of information gatherings. I would imagine that they are using spy plane sweeps and other high tech surveillance
You know what? had your side come out and said ‘we want to have more oversight on this program ensure civil rights are not violated, but we support the effort to monitor foreign terrorists’, you would have had an overwhelming majority of Americans in complete favor of that.
But that’s not what the Dems/left did. It’s not who they are. They immediately, without details of the program, aggressively attacked it as “illegal”, a “shredding of the constitution”, etc. They engaged in ignorant knee-jerk smears. Why? Because by and large, they’re hateful moonbats. This is but one of many, many typical examples demonstrating how extreme the left is
Darrell
It’s the exact same argument I have made on BJ threads in the past regarding the NSA matter.. even since you’ve been here. Nothing new on my side
Didn’t the President essentially say that his NSA program was outside the scope of FISA? Isn’t the WH saying that FISA warrants are an encroachment of the President’s authority? in this instance, his authority to monitor suspected foreign terrorists outside the country without warrant
Steve
If you are trying to claim that we have been spying on 10 or 20 thousand Americans without a warrant for the last 4 years, and we have yet to arrest a single terrorist under this program (aside from, perhaps, those Brooklyn Bridge guys), then I’m not sure you can argue that the net hasn’t been cast way too wide. I don’t think the Fourth Amendment lets us eavesdrop on 10,000 people just to find 1 guilty man.
Your call for Democrats to debate “more responsibly” has been noted, Senator. It must chafe you to see colleagues like Specter and Brownback lining up with the moonbat left, saying this program was inappropriate and illegal.
Perry Como
The argument is that the Executive has absolute power in all things related to national security. That’s what Yoo has argued and that’s what the administration has posited. The justification is so far out there that it required finding a low-mid level DoJ staffer to write the legal contortions necessary to present it as an argument.
The justification of the warrantless wiretapping is more troubling than the wiretapping itself. But civil libertarians have no problems with the unitary executive theory. It’s right up the libertarian alley on limited government.
Darrell
The NSA program targets enemies overseas, so don’t expect to see big results here. The program is used to try and foil terrorist plots and capture or kill terrorists. If any dirt on an American citizen/person is obtained during warrantless surveillance, that information cannot be used against the American. That’s the way it was before and after Bush’s NSA program. I don’t believe any of the leakers stated that US success stories were limited to the Brooklyn Bridge plot.. that was only one example
I call bullshit. Show us the quotes where Specter and Brownback called the program “illegal” as you claimed. Or did you simply make that up because you had nothing else to go with?
Darrell
Well, I don’t know about Yoo’s statement, but an Asst. AG under Clinton defended Bush’s authority to run the NSA program. That John Schidt must chafe you, huh Steve?
Pooh
At risk of getting called a liar, the general consensus of people not named John Yoo is that this
is incorrect as a legal matter. I give you the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (warning, .pdf file), Lederman, et al (that’s something of a murderer’s row of legal minds at pages 11-12, btw), Orin Kerr (frequently), Comey and Goldsmith formerly of the OLC, Cass Sunstein tangentially (read his review of Yoo’s book for a fairly thorough deconstruction of Yoo’s historical premises), etc.
And before you throw it back at me, yes I know Pat Roberts opined that FISA is unconstitutional today. But, as Lederman has already responded:
Note, Roberts isn’t making the Hamdi/AUMF authorization argument – he’s saying that FISA is unconstitutional WRT the President, full stop. By extension, no criminal law can restrain the president when he is acting in the interests of national security where he alone determines what constitutes a Nat’l security issue. Read that again. He can ignore the law as long as he deems it neccesary to ignore the law. There is thus no law WRT to the President. That is the argument you are supporting.
Steve
I have never heard of the guy you cite, so I can’t say as it chafes me in the least. Does it flabbergast me that at least one Democrat disagrees with me? Not really. I’m not the one claiming everyone who disagrees is a crazy extremist.
Perry Como
And because a Clinton staffer said it’s okay makes it okay? If you want to know more about the administration’s legal justifications for its actions, I’d suggest reading the Bybee memo. The actions being justified are different, but the reasoning is the same: the President has unenumerated powers granted by the Constitution. Yoo’s book covers the reasoning quite well, The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11.
Darrell
You know Steve, “troubled by”, “I don’t think so”, and “we need to look into this further”, are not the same as making the definitive accusations of “illegal” or trampling the constitution
Pooh
Perry,
Re Yoo, Sunstein’s review can be found here (sub. wall, maybe)
maybe here as well.
Darrell
Pooh, the President has the authority to monitor suspected foreign enemies outside the country without warrant. I don’t see why this authority should disappear just because the suspected foreign terrorist outside the country receives communications from within the US. It doesn’t make sense
demimondian
Hmm. You know, Pooh, I don’t think that Robert’s argument is as lunatic as you make it.
It seems to be that there is a colorable argument based on the Congressional power to impeach and remove officials from any other branch. Notice that the power to impeach and remove is not subject to any review from any other branch — if Congress believes that any member of the Executive or Judiciary branches has committed any high crime or misdemeanor, which is largely read to mean “bad behavior the Congress doesn’t like”, then that individual can be fired and barred from government service with no opportunity for review by either branch. That’s an absolutely unrestrained power, and is designed that way.
Any argument against Yoo, then, needs to be predicated on something intrinsically different than mere balance of powers.
Steve
Yes, saying “I don’t know of any legal basis” is not the same thing as “illegal,” but I didn’t put the word in quotes, either. Nor do I know when it became crazed moonbattery to say something is illegal when you think it violates the law.
As for “shredding the constitution,” oh my god, yes that’s so shrill… but you didn’t even address the Fourth Amendment argument I made above.
Darrell
Schmidt wasn’t a low level staffer, he was the Assistant Attorney General of the US. And if Bush’s program was really “so far out there” (your words) as you suggest, then it doesn’t pass the smell test that someone of his background who is a Democrat would be defending Bush if Bush’s program really was so “out there”
Darrell
If the target of the NSA program is a suspected non-American FOREIGN enemy, as all evidence I’ve seen indicates, then the 4th amendment doesn’t apply.. Are you seriously arguing that non-americans are protected under the 4th?
Steve
No, I’m not, I’m obviously talking about the rights of the U.S. citizen whose calls are being wiretapped.
The government can’t rummage through your house without a warrant just because it thinks it might find evidence against a non-citizen there. You’re a citizen, you have rights.
Pooh
Darrell, you are begging the question of ‘how do we know it is limited to group X?’ The reason for FISA’s existence is that experience has told us that “trust us, we know what we are doing” leads to MLK getting bugged, etc. Every single one of us is saying “bug the hell out of terrorist communications.” But we’d like at least minimal assurances that you aren’t listening to my Grandma talking to her sister in Atlanta.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, the President’s power over certain things is pretty much unlimited. However, the ability to determine where “certain things” end is not. To the extent that that ‘fence’ constrains action within the fenced-off are, there isn’t really much that can be done, because the opposite result would mean literally unconstrained power.
In this context, it is clear that he has unlimited power over fully foreign surveilance if Abdul in Algeria calls Mohammed in Moracco, we can listen to our hearts content. If one of them calls Johnny X in NYC, we can probably listent to that as well, sans warrant. Where we get into trouble is if we want to listen in on Johnny’s subsequent calls.
Now if anything untoward happened in the original conversation between Johnny and foreign terrorist baddie (FTB), a warrant would be granted in about 15 seconds. Will Hunting from the NSA plays the tape to a FISA judge, who signs, legitimizing the tap that has been going since FTB and Johnny hung up (up to 72 hours). Now, Johnny’s next call is to Pizza Hut, which we legally tap pursuant to the above warrant. Do we then have the legal ability to tap Pizza Hut and then every person who calls Pizza Hut? You see where I am going right?
Pooh
Demi,
I may have taken some liberties around the edges. That being said, the power of impeachment carries important internal controls that Executive action does not.
Further, I will say that whatever degree of relative looniness the Roberts letter suggests, he offers very little in the way of legal support beyond a Posnerian “this would be a good idea”. Which is fine, but as I said upthread, change the law.
Darrell
We’re not even sure that any US citizens have had their phones wiretapped. If a suspected terrorist in Yemen has HIS phone tapped, and he happens to receive a call from someone within the US, that’s not the same as running the tap on the phone of the American. Running the tap on the US citizen/person’s phone would involve the FBI, not the NSA, right?
We’re definitely at an impasse when analogies like this appear. Definitely looking at things through different lenses
Steve
I think Pooh stated it very well. Listening to a call between a terrorist and a US citizen, no one has a problem with that. But when you want to listen to the subsequent calls of the US citizen, just to be sure they’re not also a terrorist, you have to deal with the constitutional issues.
Darrell
I’ve got really bad news for you Pooh, I agree with everything you said in that paragraph. However, both the Pres and Cheney have been very specific on this, and they say this program involves ONLY communication going to or from foreign enemies outside the US.
Tapping Johnny’s phone without warrant is a tough one, and I doubt it would fall under the NSA program, although I don’t know. That part I’m in sort of agreement with you. If they did wiretap Johnny without warrant, and it turned out Johnny was supporting an Al Queda plot, none of it could be used against him, although the information could be used to foil the plot with time sensitive intel. Which means the govt would have a big incentive to get a warrant if it was feasible to do so
Perry Como
Yoo was a low-mid level staffer. And just because a Clinton staffer (AAG or otherwise) said the program was fine, doesn’t mean a civil libertarian is going to automatically support it. See, some people look beyond the partisan politics of Clinton->good, Bush->bad. Clinton->bad, Bush->bad is perfectly acceptable. So is Clinton->bad, Bush->good. It all comes down to the particular situation.
Of course it is amusing to see someone say that Clinton was a paragon of civil liberties.
ppGaz
Designated Spammer Darrell is down to something on the order of 20% of all posts to the thread, from his standard rate of 35-40% of all posts on NSA threads ….
Does this indicate that Darrell is weakening? That his resolve is waning? That maybe he is losing some of that Darrell-icious steam?
And when he starts saying things like “looking at things through different lenses” does that indicate an end to the totally stubborn, doctrinaire and implacable Darrellisms all aimed at reinforcing his single, solitary point?
Which is, “Bush did nothing wrong!”
“And even if he did, anyone who doesn’t think it was okay is a terrorist-loving pussy!”
In short, what is wrong with Darrell? Is Darrell dying?
Pooh
That’s today’s story, yesterday’s was, er, different. And the original NYT piece was different. If it was as simple as saying ‘we are only monitoring foreign communications’ that would have been an easy answer to give the first time. And that’s not the answer they gave the first time. The first answer was “I can do whatever I want”. So I’m mildly skeptical. Especially when we get stories of the FBI complaining about getting a bunch of tips that turned out to be “calling out for Pizza Hut” as they said.
Is it really something so simple as coming down to a good old fact dispute? Bring on the hearings, I says!
Bob In Pacifica
That video camera at the 7-11 has done much damage to my ability to knock over the place without getting caught.
Darrell
That might be because the NY Times ran the story without cooperation (to put it mildly) from the White House. So of course they’re not going to have all the details
First of all, the WH was trying to assess any damage to National security from those leaks in the early days/weeks. Second, show us where they responded along those lines “we do whatever we want” type of attitude. I remember them pointing out that the program was legal in their opinion and pointing out that it had Congressional oversight. I don’t recall the “do whatever we want” defense.
Bush and Cheney have put it out there, being very specific that the program targets only overseas foreign enemies. I doubt they would come out so forcefully on that clarification if they didn’t have the facts on their side. But Senate hearings should flush this out
Perry Como
In the early year, you mean. The White House knew about the leaks for a full year before the NYT printed the story.
You’d need to read the Bybee memo and John Yoo for that. But “we do whatever we want” is indeed the administration’s position.
I was hoping for an independent investigator. If it’s good enough for the Clenis…
DougJ
Just thought we should all read that again. It’s statistically improbable that a million commenters typing on a million keyboards will come up with that good of a Darrell put down again in our lifetimes.
DougJ
Also a very good post.
Pooh
you are too kind, Doug.
ppGaz
We do what we can.
ppGaz
Courtesy of Eric Alterman, this rather strong argument that George Bush is a saint …
According to Alterman’s “story,” a Methodist minister was bound to say that Bush was a saint. So, he got up on Sunday and said …
ImJohnGalt
Can I still take credit for the comment that precipitated the “Post of a Lifetime”?
‘cos I will. I’m shameless like that.
Gary Farber
“Members of the intelligence community yesterday testified….”
Myself, I draw a very bright and very large line between “Members of the intelligence community” and political appointees. The latter are professionals, and I’m inclined to treat them as such.
The former are apt to say whatever their master wants to hear. There are virtues to having a Civil Service, which is why Teddy Roosevelt invented it. Modern Republicans largely hate that.
Pooh
Sure: Best. Batting Practice Pitcher. Ever.
Or
Best. Straight Line Giver. Ever.
Take your pick…
Bruce Moomaw
“While the damage done to civil liberties (or the threat of damage done to civl liberties) has received widespread coverage, and debates over the legality v. illegality of the NSA wiretapping have received widespread coverage, there has been little discussion about any actual damage from these disclosures.”
Then why the hell did the Administration set up procedures for spying that — entirely unnecessarily — DID endanger civil liberties, leaving any officials who objected to it with no choice but to either (1) let a threat to civil liberties stand, or (2) expose the classified program even if some collateral damage was done in the process? John’s objection remainds me of some bank robber who holds a teller hostage, and then complains that the cop who accidentally shoots her while trying to rescue her is guilty of immoral behavior.
ImJohnGalt
“You keep using ‘former’ and ‘latter’. I do not think that those words mean what you think they mean.”
Unless, of course, that you think political appointees are professionals, in which case they do mean what you think they mean, but I must vehemently disagree.
The Disenfranchised Voter
You’re right Darrell. The President does have the authority to monitor suspected foreign enemies outside the US without a warrant. Now you go on to say that you don’t see why this authority should disappear just because the other end of the communication involves someone in the US.
Well I can tell you why it disappears. The answer is right in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As I said earlier, I’ve read FISA, I know what I’m talking about. But since I’m in a good mood this morning, I’ll explicitly show you the exact part of the act that deals with this.
Have a look yourself:
So as you see Darrell, that is why the President loses his authority. It’s right there in FISA law.
Now your only other arugment would be that FISA is Unconstitutional. And if you want to go that route, be my guest, because guess where this debate will go to?
The 4th Amendment. And trust me, there is no way in hell you will win that debate.
DougJ
I think that Balloon Juice commenters will remember the night of February 3 as the night the Darrell era ended.
Darrell
DV, your citation refers to “physical searches”, and “physical searches” specifically exclude electronic surveillance per 1821(5)
Pretty clear language on that issue, even for non-lawyers. There may be a legal case to make against Bush’s program, but it’s not as cut-and-dried as you pretend it is
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hmm. I guess I should have read the definitions section.
What can I say. I was wrong, electronic surveillance is not considered a physical search.
Ok well now I think his program might actually be legal. But we still need an investigation to determine whether or not it is.
Pooh
TDV, there is another section which deals with warrantless electronic surveilance. From sec. 1802:
So
Darrell
Pooh, how do you square that citation with what you posted earlier:
In other words, if a foreign suspect has communication to or from a US citizen, you believe the American can be listened in on as well without warrant, a position with which I am in agreement.
The section 1802 that you cite seems to my unlawyered eyes to refer to a different set of circumstances.
If the NSA is running surveillance on Abdul in Yemen, the President has authority to do so without court permission for unrestricted time periods, correct? The fact that this section refers to a ‘1 year limitation’, seems to indicate that this law pertains to circumstances different from the President’s NSA program. The FISA laws came into being as a result of purely domestic spy abuses, and Bush’s program involves the monitoring of suspected foreign enemies who are outside the US.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well thank you Pooh, and now I’m back to where I started.
The program is illegal, Bush clearly broke the law.
Pooh
Darrell, two things.
First, you generally only need a warrant on one of the two parties to a conversation. There may or may not be limitations as to how long you can listen to determine if the conversation is ‘pertinent’ to the warrant (in Title III wire cases I believe some warrants to be limited in this way, but it’s really not my area so I’m making informed speculation).
Since you can listen to FTB, his call into the country is listenable. It’s murkier if a U.S. Person calls out of the country to FTB, as it’s the U.S. Person may or may not be ‘targetted’. But I think that’s splitting hairs as a warrant for people receiving calls from FTB’s would almost certainly be approved.
And it’s certainly true that listening to completely domestic calls, sans warrant is illegal under FISA, so the issue with the second call is that you are monitoring ALL of his calls to determine the one’s you can listen to – wich gets us back to my upthread problem about ‘fences’ (if I remember which metaphor I chose).
Just A. Thought
Hmmm, let’s come at this from a slightly different perspective. If someone, a very bad person, say like an executive of a huge company, or even a leader of country could tap into financial transactions and aggregate and sort them. Those very naughty boys could end up being as wealthy as …Well maybe even as wealthy as George Bush and Dick Cheney. It could happen, but not here, because we’re protected by George Bush and Dick Cheney! Sleep tight America.