Life in Bush’s America:
A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.
“It’s time for you to get some new cell phones, quick,” the source told us in an in-person conversation.
ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.
Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.
Think that the government has a FISA warrant for this activity? I have a nice bridge in Alaska for you. So we are looking at unsupervised government wiretapping, also known at the president’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program.”
There seems to be a disconnect here. The name of the program seems to implies that it surveils terrorists. Let’s try to find a connection between the Foley scandal and terrorists…other than the truly insane ramblings of Dennis Hastert there isn’t any. Just a story about a Congressman who couldn’t keep his pants zipped and the House leadership who protected him. So national security is pretty much a dead end.
However this scandal poses an undeniable, clear and present danger to Republican security. Desperate to save their hides, our Republican government would love the power to surveil people like Brian Ross without any oversight body and just maybe find an incriminating bit of knowledge that could change the story overnight. Only inbuilt checks like the FISA court stand in the way of Nixonian abuses on the privacy of ordinary American citizens. In fact that is precisely why FISA was enacted in the first place.
I think you gan guess where this is going. Thanks to the best efforts of truly mindless enablers from John Yoo to power-drunk pundits in DC and online our present administration truly believes that they can surveil whoever they choose without answering to any oversight body whatsoever. Most enablers tell themselves that the president will only use his powers for good because, well, because he’s a good person, and some genuinely don’t care how he will use his powers as long as he uses them for Republicans. Let’s be honest, the first excuse is the most pathetic sort of voluntary blindness and the second is nakedly un-American.
Simple fact: when you add power and subtract oversight and accountability abuse will follow. Humans follow their nature like water flows downhill. Frankly, under the powers claimed by the White House for itself we should have no doubt that every major player in the Foley scandal is under intense and unsupervised government surveillance. As it stands, and bear in mind that this is precisely how the GOP’s remaining followers want it, the only thing standing in the way of that reality is the goodwill of Republican leaders. I’m sure that there exists a person whose goodwill can survive the threat of disgrace, unemployment and prison but that person sure as hell does not work in DC.
***Update***
Yep, 5-month-old quote. That’s what I get for googling around without reading the pub date.
The general point stands – the government claims the right to surveil who it chooses without oversight. In an existential fight for their political survival, who believes taht our leaders will voluntarily limit their surveillance to real terrorists? I doubt that any credible student of human nature thinks that they will do so.
blackfrancis
this is just like santa claus using his powers for evil.
zzyzx
Isn’t that quote like 5 months old and never did get any additional confirmation? I worry about Bush, but I don’t think there’s actual evidence that his government is doing this yet.
Zifnab
That quote does sound familiar. Although, in this day and age, it could just crop up periodically because the new cell phones everyone picked up last time got compromised.
Steve
Of course there’s not. However, the whole point of a warrant requirement is that we shouldn’t have to worry about it.
Tsulagi
But..but..but, we’re just listening in to make sure it’s not al Qaeda calling.
They made the jump to warp past that a long time ago.
Darrell
This kind of dishonest crap is praised as speaking ‘truth to power’ for many on the left.
Richard 23
Mmmm, pie!
John D.
OK, I’ll bite.
What part of “the government claims the right to surveil who it chooses without oversight” is dishonest?
Darrell
The entire statement. It’s a lie.
Mr Furious
Just go away, Darrell.
RobR
Here’s another lie:
“Our party must protect children from predators on the Internet, which is a series of tubes… possibly the same tubes we use to corn-chute young boys.”
carpeicthus
If you don’t support child molestation, you’re a terrorist.
Darrell
Translation: “Give us our echo chamber. Don’t question anything we say”
John D.
Darrell,
Explain to me how wiretapping without a warrant is anything other than surveillance without oevrsight.
Tim F.
Describe who in your opinion the Bush administration sees as a legitimate oversight body. Go ahead and cite legal opinions from AG Gonzalez and influential advisors like David Addington and John Yoo, or you could look to the Bush-approved Specter bill on surveillance.
The FISA court? Nope. How about Congress? Yoo, Gonzales and Addington clearly state that Congressional oversight gets in the way of the Unitary Executive’s prerogative for national defense. The Specter bill requires the president to inform a Congressional committee but only if he feels like it. And if the Committee disapproves it has precisely zero ability to do anything about it.
So go for it Darrell. As on every thread in this history of this site you have accused somebody of lying. Back it up. Just let me know who the Executive branch considers a legitimate oversight body. Believe me, I’m all ears.
Thomas
A five month old quote about a supposed criminal investigation for which a FISA warrant wouldn’t issue. Add your mindless suppositions and we have more of the usual.
Tony J
I can only suppose that the great big echoing silence on this thread after Darrell was asked to back up his lie means that, yup, the Government really can spy on whoever it wants, when it wants. No checks, no Balances, nada, zip.
And that’s very much that. Sleep well.
lard lad
Listen! Crickets!
Thomas
Tony, I’ll bite: no one has claimed that the government can spy on whoever it wants whenever it wants. Why would you think that? Because Tim supposes so, and offers his suppositions and a mixture of a misunderstanding of an old news article and a misunderstanding of FISA?
Steve
But of course it can. It wouldn’t be legal, but there’s no oversight, so it makes no difference.
The point of a warrant requirement is that people who don’t put their complete trust in the government shouldn’t have to wonder whether the government is abusing its power.
Kimmitt
I’m sorry, but there’s no point — anyone who still supports the Bush Admistration is too far into denial and/or psychosis to be useful to talk to. Darrell isn’t lying; the sky really is orange on his planet. Leave it at that.
Thomas
Steve, then are you saying that you agree that no one is claiming the right? Cause that would mean you agree with Darrell–Tim’s a liar. Or you could agree with me: Tim’s a moron.
Steve
Now you’re playing silly pedantic games, which means you can talk to the wall if you like.
“The government has the ability to spy on whoever they want, and no one can do anything about it… but at least they’re not CLAIMING they have the right to do so! I win, I win!”
Thomas
Steve, maybe you can explain how you think legal prohibitions on government action typically work. “Oversight” isn’t magic, and procedural protections are merely legal.
BIRDZILLA
More of our imperial courts giving big brother the way to spy on us
Michelle
Thoughtful article written on this very point today…
Have We Gone Surveillance Crazy?
http://americaninventorspot.com/being_watched
I think he raises some good points.