Today's Washington Post has an article today that conflates the two NSA programs that have been leaked to the press. It implies that administration officials lied when answering questions about the first leaked program.
When he was asked about the National Security Agency's controversial domestic surveillance program last Monday, U.S. intelligence chief John D. Negroponte objected to the question and said the government was "absolutely not" monitoring domestic calls without warrants.
"I wouldn't call it domestic spying," he told reporters. "This is about international terrorism and telephone calls between people thought to be working for international terrorism and people here in the United States."
Negroponte's answer is not inaccurate. The data mining is not "monitoring" domestic calls, and the reporter should know that. Taking numeric data is not the same as listening. These are two completely different programs. If an official had answered a question about the terrorist monitoring program by revealing the data-mining program, that person would have been guilty of revealing classified information.
Like the source(s) of the USA Today story are.
Please let's not add fuel to the fire by misrepresenting things like this.
Based on these two links, I’d say that the latest NSA program is quite legal, well at least if they buy them, like everybody else.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-privacy05.html
http://www.democrats.com/spy-on-them
Who had access to the datamining program and the terrorist monitoring program. Congrees won’t ask because they all have.
The suntimes link notes that the selling of phone records is likely illegal (I’d note “definitely illegal”), and those records are procured through deception or theft.
Is anybody surprised by this?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html
Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:
A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we 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.
You appear to be jumping to the conclusion that there is something improper here. If Justice is involved, why do you assume they do not have proper warrants?
First amendment rights do not extend to publishing secret information – someone had a post up on it – I can’t remember where – but the case law is against the press on this topic.
Gaius,
I’m sorry, but it’s not okay to hide illegal activity under the cloak of secrecy.
Neither program was authorized by Congress, and at least one of the programs, perhaps both, are explicitly prohibited by FISA.
Juggler – that is an allegation that has yet to be proved. Some analyists say one thing, some another. Wait and see what the outcome is until you state it’s illegal, okay?
I seem to remember much glee among the lefties when it was reported that Rove had been indicted over the weekend, too.
But Gaius,
If there’s a debate about whether or not the program is legal, doesn’t that cry out for there being a legislative debate about it first?
Again, if you think only terrorists or leftists or liberals are potential targets of this, you’re naive. Just ask William Safire.
Not necessarily, the debate is not in congress at the moment. Just because people not in the government are het up about it, does not mean it has not been reviewed. At least some people in Congress have been fully briefed. Others may not have been – and may feel miffed at that – but the more people who know about a program, the bigger the chance of a leak.
If it turns out it was legal, an enormous amount of damage has been done. If the people who leaked it had concerns, they did not follow proper procedure. USA Today is not the official reviewer of secret programs.
But the administration (any administration, not just the Bush administration) can’t just make up secret programs at will, tell a few friends in Congress about it, and call it good.
It’s really funny that people who call themselves conservative (I’d argue that most of them aren’t actually conservative) are so trusting with the government.
What if a Democratic president started, in secret, a program where the Federal Government hired people to take jobs with private companies, and then to report back any safety, health, or environmental violations. Would you be okay with that?
After all, Americans are far more likely to die from work-related causes than from a terrorist attack. According to the CDC over 100,000 Americans dying from work-related causes in that time. In 1997 over 5000 Americans died from work-related causes.
Again, the sheer size of this number crunching guarantees anonymity – unless they turn up a reason to go dig out the detail.
Private companies have much more data than this. Hell, I can tell you where your IP originates from, what browser you are using, what operating system and even your monitor resolution.
Gaius,
That just seems like a weak argument to me, and if what ABC is reporting is true, not valid. Once they have all of the data, it’s likely a relatively simple (though possibly CPU consuming) matter to extract all of the information for a particular phone number.
It also seems like a self-contradictory argument. If they can’t tie the phone numbers to actual people, why do it in the first place? The data only becomes useful when the phone numbers are related to actual people.
That’s not how data mining works, Juggler. You simply wouldn’t waste the time of running something down unless a pattern emerged is what I surmise from what I have heard described. At the point a pattern was recognized you would have to go through normal warrant procedures to find out who the numbers belonged to.
That’s a guess based on what I have heard so far.
What, there’s a known “terrorist use of telephones” pattern?
It just seems unlikely that it works that way. It seems more likely that users of the information would choose a target, then look at the connections to that person.
We’d all like to think that the people they’ll choose as targets will all be suspected terror masterminds. The history of domestic spying in this country shows that it’s often been used for political purposes, COINTELPRO being the most notorious example.
A couple of things bother me about this data mining.
When the data mining began [shortly after 9/11], why didn’t the Administration get it squared legally? At that time, the whole country was eager to do whatever we could to fight the terrorists, and Bush had an extraordinary high poll rating whereby most folks welcomed his leadership. So, why not ask for enabling legislation that would ‘up-date’ the FISA and Telecommunications Acts?
The other thing that is bothering me is the CW sequencing of these two kinds of surveillances, data-mining and warrantless wiretaps. It sure seems logical that a data-mining system would precede the warrantless wiretaps. But the media is not saying that, and is sort of inferring the reverse sequence.
But if the data-mining came first, and was done without the Congress [and legislation up-dating of statutes], then it suddenly makes sense to me why FISA would be bypassed in the warrantless wire-tap program, i.e., the program developers realizing it was based upon ‘fishing’
that the FISA court would reject for 4th Amendment reasons.
Anyway, I think we all need to look separately at 1] the value of certain programs and 2] the issue of illegality— in order to see how we can have what works AND be sure those programs are legal and constitutional.
Good points, Donna.
I’m bothered by the reflex reaction of some to say that those that exposed this program, as well as the warrantless wiretap program, should be prosecution. If there’s a program of questionable legality, those who expose it are doing their patriotic duty.
In my mind, the fact that it was done without authorization makes them illegal. I’d like to see the Constitutional justification for the Executive branch instituting a program with no authorization from Congress, and notification of only a select few members of Congress.
You are absolutely wrong on this one, Juggler. There is a completely valid process for people to object if they think something is illegal. IF the leakers had followed those procedures and still been unsatisfied and then leaked, I might actually have some sympathy. But someone who takes an oath to hold secrets cannot lightly cast them aside based on his or her opinion. Or the entire system collapses.
That is a disaster for this – and any – country. You need to step back from the partisanship on this and think about that.
You are routinely charging that Bush is exceeding his authority, playing fast and loose with the rules and damning him for it. But you are excusing it in someone you politically agree with. Not a tenable position, I think.
Donna, I am not convinced at this point that any law was broken. I am not a lawyer, but I have seen some reasoned (and some unreasoned) analysis in both directions.
But I think the administration thinks it CAN justify it legally or they never would have dared nominate Hayden. I suspect there are going to be a few people backpeddling on this issue. Hard and fast.
I have no idea of the politics of the leaker, and neither do you.
Do we know for a fact that the leakers didn’t follow the process?
And what damage has been done by leaking this information. You don’t think Al Qaida is aware that their phones might be tapped?
Also, I believe that whistleblowers are protected, at least in theory. I don’t know the exact wording of the law, but I think if they expose activity that they believe to be illegal, then they aren’t supposed to be retaliated against.
I understand that the way things actually work is often much different.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/fbi_acknowledge.html
ABC is reporting that the FBI has acknowledged that it is tracking reporters phone calls.
This is a serious blow to openness in government. In many cases, leakers are exposing questionable activity by the government.
It seems to me that true conservatives would be appalled at this blow to government accountability.
Again – you are assuming misconduct. Did the feds get warrants? If so, there is no issue at all. Period.
Thanks, Gaius. You wrote above of the reasoned and not-so-reasoned arguments on both sides of ‘what is legal’. You say Juggler is assuming misconduct. While you, yourself, are assuming proper conduct, for one, by citing the Hayden nomination.
Precisely! It is very much a part of the problem here that citizens and congressional representatives of those citizens are reduced to ‘making assumptions’ about these programs which are designed to focus on terrorists, but which, we have learned, cover us all in a sweeping net. We really do need to know about the legality or lack thereof. We really do need to be assured that our freedoms are being protected as well as our safety.
Donna, there are also times when secrecy is necessary and appropriate, I’m sure you understand that. If it turns out this was one of the times, how does the damage get undone?
Gaius, I do understand that sometimes secrecy is necessary and appropriate. I am having a hard time with the idea that only one branch of government is involved here….whereby the usual checks and balances which are constitutionally designed to assure legality and protection of rights are replaced by the one branch involved ‘monitoring [checking and balancing] itself, and saying that is sufficient.
I would be most happy if the congressional and/or judicial branch issued a statement that said: “We have done a review, all is well, rights to privacy and constitutional laws are assured….”
Hatch made a statement to that effect, including reporting that FISA court judges had been informed.