PDA

View Full Version : NSA Wiretapping Only The Tip Of The Iceberg



Gold9472
08-01-2007, 09:37 AM
NSA Spying Part of Broader Effort
Intelligence Chief Says Bush Authorized Secret Activities Under One Order

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073102137_pf.html

(Gold9472: This is nothing new, according to Russell Tice (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8316).)

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; A01

The Bush administration's chief intelligence official said yesterday that President Bush authorized a series of secret surveillance activities under a single executive order in late 2001. The disclosure makes clear that a controversial National Security Agency program was part of a much broader operation than the president previously described.

The disclosure by Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, appears to be the first time that the administration has publicly acknowledged that Bush's order included undisclosed activities beyond the warrantless surveillance of e-mails and phone calls that Bush confirmed in December 2005.

In a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), McConnell wrote that the executive order following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks included "a number of . . . intelligence activities" and that a name routinely used by the administration -- the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- applied only to "one particular aspect of these activities, and nothing more."

"This is the only aspect of the NSA activities that can be discussed publicly, because it is the only aspect of those various activities whose existence has been officially acknowledged," McConnell said.

The program that Bush announced was put under a court's supervision in January, but the administration now wants congressional approval to do much of the same surveillance without a court order.

McConnell's letter was aimed at defending Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales from allegations by Democrats that he may have committed perjury by telling Congress that no legal objections were raised about the TSP. Gonzales said a legal fight in early 2004 was focused on "other intelligence activities" than those confirmed by Bush, but he never connected those to Bush's executive order.

But in doing so, McConnell's letter also underscored that the full scope of the NSA's surveillance program under Bush's order has not been revealed. The TSP described by Bush and his aides allowed the interception of communication between the United States and other countries where one party is believed to be tied to al-Qaeda, so other types of communication or data are presumably being collected under the parts of the wider NSA program that remain hidden.

News reports over the past 20 months have detailed a range of activities linked to the program, including the use of data mining to identify surveillance targets and the participation of telecommunication companies in turning over millions of phone records. The administration has not publicly confirmed such reports.

A spokesman for McConnell declined to elaborate on the letter. The Justice Department also declined to comment.

Specter was noncommittal yesterday on whether McConnell's explanation resolved his questions about the accuracy of Gonzales's previous testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Specter is the ranking Republican. Specter said he was waiting for a separate letter from the attorney general to provide additional clarification.

"If he doesn't have a plausible explanation, then he hasn't leveled with the committee," Specter said on CNN. Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that "the department will continue to work with Senator Specter to address his concerns" but declined to comment further.

McConnell's letter leaves maneuvering room for both sides in the political fracas over whether Gonzales has been truthful in his testimony. On the one hand, the NSA was clearly engaged in activities that were distinct enough to require different "legal bases" authorizing their use, according to McConnell's account.

"If you think about it technically, it is pretty clear that the NSA desk that does communications intercepts is separate from the desk that does data mining of call records," said Kim Taipale, executive director of the Center for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology Policy, a New York-based nonprofit group. "Those are separate processes, and to think of them as separate programs is not a stretch."

On the other hand, the activities were authorized under a single presidential order and were all part of an NSA effort to gather communications about suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks. That helps explain why many Democratic lawmakers and administration officials -- including FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III -- viewed the wiretapping as part of a larger NSA program, rather than a separate effort, as Gonzales's testimony has suggested.

"Both sides have a legitimate case, if you want to be legalist about it," Taipale said.

The 45-day reauthorization of a single presidential order was probably a "bureaucratic convenience" that eliminated the need to issue multiple authorizations, he added.

Kate Martin, executive director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the new disclosures show that Gonzales and other administration officials have "repeatedly misled the Congress and the American public" about the extent of NSA surveillance efforts.

"They have repeatedly tried to give the false impression that the surveillance was narrow and justified," Martin said. "Why did it take accusations of perjury before the DNI disclosed that there is indeed other, presumably broader and more questionable, surveillance?"

Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who was among a group of four Democratic senators who called last week for a perjury investigation of Gonzales, said: "The question of whether Attorney General Gonzales perjured himself looms as large now as it did before this letter.

"This letter is no vindication of the attorney general," he said.

AuGmENTor
08-01-2007, 06:17 PM
Well, if we're not terrorists, and we have nothing to hide, we shouldn't MIND them watching our communications.

Gold9472
08-01-2007, 06:29 PM
Well, if we're not terrorists, and we have nothing to hide, we shouldn't MIND them watching our communications.

Someone made that argument to me today. "Unless you're doing something illegal, then you shouldn't care if they monitor you."

Imagine this scenario...

Andrew: "Hey, it's Andrew..."
Andrew's Friend: "Hey sweety."
Andrew: "Man, that blowjob you gave me the other day was awesome."
Andrew's Friend: "Thank you."

A few years later, Andrew decides that he would like to run for office. Someone posts this particular conversation in a commercial, and we find out that "Andrew's Friend" is actually a man, and that Andrew is gay. As a result, Andrew loses the election.

I have a problem with that.

AuGmENTor
08-01-2007, 06:32 PM
I have a problem with your choice of examples. We promised each other we wouldn't blow up each others spot until you were elected...

Gold9472
08-01-2007, 06:33 PM
heh...

AuGmENTor
08-01-2007, 06:34 PM
And don't call me sweety! I downloaded that movie Falling Down. Fucked up shit...

Gold9472
08-01-2007, 06:35 PM
And don't call me sweety! I downloaded that movie Falling Down. Fucked up shit...

Yea, good movie.

werther
08-01-2007, 08:32 PM
hahaaaa! that was funny. Good point Gold. Whenever I hear that intellectually corrupt argument I declare that I did not realize so many Americans sympathized with the Chinese form of government control. That usually gets 'em thinking. ......well maybe 'thinking' isn't the right word.

Gold9472
08-01-2007, 08:34 PM
Can you imagine being watched every hour of every day? Who would accept something like that?

AuGmENTor
08-01-2007, 09:19 PM
Can you imagine being watched every hour of every day? Who would accept something like that?Isn't there a "reality" show based on that concept? Fuckin TV.

Gold9472
08-01-2007, 09:23 PM
Isn't there a "reality" show based on that concept? Fuckin TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0rHH6LQdpI

AuGmENTor
08-01-2007, 09:36 PM
Did I say MOVIE???? Ever see CableGuy? I liked that one... It makes me think of what living with Philosophy Genius would be like, as he is a TV whore from hell...

PhilosophyGenius
08-02-2007, 02:30 AM
It would be like watching tv all day and learning to enjoy it.

Gold9472
08-02-2007, 08:39 AM
White House says spying broader than known: report

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070801/pl_nm/usa_spying_dc

Wed Aug 1, 12:28 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration's top intelligence official has acknowledged that a controversial domestic surveillance program was only one part of a much broader spying effort, The Washington Post reported in its Wednesday edition.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell wrote in a letter that other aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic spying program remain classified, the Post said.

"That is the only aspect of the NSA activities that can be discussed publicly because it is the only aspect of those various activities whose existence has been officially acknowledged," McConnell wrote, according to the Post.

Bush acknowledged the existence of a program that monitored domestic phone calls and e-mails without court oversight in December 2005. The administration has not confirmed other secret spying efforts reported by news outlets, such as one that searched millions of telephone records.

Bush signed an executive order that authorized "a number of ... intelligence activities" following the hijacking attacks of September 11, 2001, McConnell wrote.

The warrantless wiretapping program was put under court supervision in January but the administration now wants Congress to allow it to do many of the same activities without a court order.

The letter was sent on Tuesday to Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The letter was written to defend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has been under attack over his testimony to Congress about the warrantless spying program, the Post said.

PhilosophyGenius
08-02-2007, 01:54 PM
Imagine this scenario...

Andrew: "Hey, it's Andrew..."
Andrew's Friend: "Hey sweety."
Andrew: "Man, that blowjob you gave me the other day was awesome."
Andrew's Friend: "Thank you."






Isn't it the other way around?

AuGmENTor
08-02-2007, 03:21 PM
It depends on your perspective...

Gold9472
11-05-2007, 07:49 PM
bump