-
NSA Surveillance Watch: US Supreme Court Affirms Appeals Court Ruling – OKs Bush Domestic Surveillance Program
The National Security Agency (NSA) logo is shown on a computer screen inside the Threat Operations Center at the NSA in Fort Meade, Maryland, January 25, 2006.
The United States Supreme Court earlier today let stand a United States Court of Appeals ruling that OK’d the Bush Administrations’s domestic warrantless surveillance program.
The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The action underscored the difficulty of mounting a challenge to the eavesdropping, which remains classified and was confirmed by President Bush only after a newspaper article revealed its existence.
“It’s very disturbing that the president’s actions will go unremarked upon by the court,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s national security project. “In our view, it shouldn’t be left to executive branch officials alone to determine the limits.”
The Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists, although the administration has maintained it was legal.
The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.
A federal judge in Detroit largely agreed, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program.
Ann Beeson, the American Civil Liberties Union’s associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs challenging the government’s wiretapping policy, addresses the media in Detroit, in this June 12, 2006, file photo. A federal judge ruled Thursday, Aug. 17, 2006 that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency’s program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
And, remember the original story about a federal judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, issuing an injunction for the program (the injunction was stayed while the ruling was appealed.)
The Bush Administration announced in January 2007 that it would put intercepts of communications on U.S. soil under the oversight of that court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. And. last August, Congress made temporary changes to FISA that made the warrantless wiretapping legal in some instances and also extended immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that help with the intercepts.
This law expired over the weekend in the midst of a dispute between the Democrat controlled Congress and President Bush over allowing telecommunications companies to receive immunity from lawsuits for their cooperation with the government.
This lawsuit is over but the issue remains contentious. The United States Senate passed legislation reauthorizing the August law but Democrat leaders in the House have refused to bring up the law for a vote – pending a request for additional information.
Stay tuned…….
Previous:
NSA Surveillance Watch: US Appeals Court Throws Out Ruling – OKs Bush Domestic Surveillance Program
NSA Surveillance Watch: Judge Orders Halt to NSA Surveillance Program
NSA Surveillance Watch: Mark Steyn – “To Connect the Dots, You Have to See the Dotsâ€
NSA Surveillance Watch: President Bush Defends Scope of NSA Surveillance
NSA Surveillance Watch: NSA’s Telephone Data Collection and Analysis Program – Is It LEGAL?
NSA Surveillance Watch: NSA Has Massive Database of Americans’ Phone Calls
NSA Surveillance Watch: Senate Intelligence Committee Decides NOT to Pursue Investigation
NSA Surveillance Watch: Congressional Probe of NSA Surveilance Is in Doubt
NSA Surveillance Watch: Specter Skeptical of Domestic Spy Program
NSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Testify
NSA Surveillance Watch: AP Poll- Most Say U.S. Needs Warrant to Snoop? – RECYCLED
NSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: Vice President Cheney Strongly Defends Eavesdropping Operation
Cox & Forkum: One Man’s Whistleblower
Global War on Terror Watch: Why the NSA Monitors Communications of Al-Qaida
NSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: President Bush Defends NSA SurveillanceNSA Leak Case Watch: New York Times’ Reporter James Risen
NSA Leak Case Watch: Justice Deptartment Probing Domestic Spying Leak
NSA Surveillance Watch: President Had Legal Authority to OK Taps
NSA Surveillance Watch: Calls for Congressional Hearings
-
NSA Surveillance Watch: US Appeals Court Throws Out Ruling – OKs Bush Domestic Surveillance Program
The National Security Agency (NSA) logo is shown on a computer screen inside the Threat Operations Center at the NSA in Fort Meade, Maryland, January 25, 2006.
US appeals court throws out ruling against eavesdropping
A US federal appeals court on Friday rejected a legal challenge to the US government’s domestic eavesdropping program, launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.The ruling allowed President George W. Bush’s administration to continue its controversial program of wartime spying on communications between US and foreign locations in suspected terror cases without first seeking a warrant.
Striking down a lower court’s order, the appeals court, in a 2-1 decision, said the plaintiffs should not have won an injunction against the National Security Agency’s surveillance program because they failed to show that they were personally affected by it.
The two judges deciding against the plaintiffs did not rule, however, on the legality of the controversial program, known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP.
“Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims, we must vacate the district court’s order and remand for dismissal of the entire action,” wrote Judge Alice Batchelder.
Ann Beeson, the American Civil Liberties Union’s associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs challenging the government’s wiretapping policy, addresses the media in Detroit, in this June 12, 2006, file photo. A federal judge ruled Thursday, Aug. 17, 2006 that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency’s program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
Everyone agreed the plaintiffs had no standing and could not proceed with this injunction. But this did not deter the left wing judge, Anna Diggs Taylor from Detroit from making an absurd ruling.
But, then again, we knew the US Court of Appeals would reverse her.
Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor
The surveillance program permitted the security agency to intercept e-mails and telephone conversations between the United States and terror suspects abroad.
“We have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of Al-Qaeda, affiliated with Al-Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with Al-Qaeda, or working in support of Al-Qaeda,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said of the program in 2005.
But in August 2006, a district court judge in Detroit, Michigan imposed an injunction against the program, arguing that Bush had overstepped his authority. Her ruling was suspended while it was under appeal.
The US Department of Justice welcomed the ruling, saying it protected “a vital intelligence program that helped detect and prevent terrorist attacks,” according to spokesman Brian Roehrkasse.
Lawyers, journalists and professors represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had argued that their communications risked being eavesdropped on because they were in frequent contact with people in the Middle East.
However, Friday’s ruling noted that “the plaintiffs do not allege as injury that they … anticipate or fear any form of direct reprisal by the government, such as criminal prosecution, deportation, administrative inquiry, civil litigation, or even public exposure.”In addition, the plaintiffs were unable to prove that any of them had “actually been wiretapped,” and any declaration of injury was therefore “too speculative,” the ruling said.
The plaintiffs “allege only a subjective apprehension and a personal (self-imposed) unwillingness to communicate.”
The ACLU said they were disappointed.
But, this court ruling puts a damper on those subpoenas issued by the Democrat Congress to Vice President Dick Cheney over this very program.
Stay tuned…..
Others Blogging:
SCOTUSBlog: Circuit Court bars challenge to NSA spying
Volokh: Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Challenge NSA Surveillance
Captain’s Quarters: Court Reverses Anna Diggs Taylor
Powerline: Reversal in the NSA surveillance case
Flopping Aces
The American Mind
Sister Toldjah
Macsmind
Previous:NSA Surveillance Watch: Judge Orders Halt to NSA Surveillance Program
NSA Surveillance Watch: Mark Steyn – “To Connect the Dots, You Have to See the Dotsâ€
NSA Surveillance Watch: President Bush Defends Scope of NSA Surveillance
NSA Surveillance Watch: NSA’s Telephone Data Collection and Analysis Program – Is It LEGAL?
NSA Surveillance Watch: NSA Has Massive Database of Americans’ Phone Calls
NSA Surveillance Watch: Senate Intelligence Committee Decides NOT to Pursue Investigation
NSA Surveillance Watch: Congressional Probe of NSA Surveilance Is in Doubt
NSA Surveillance Watch: Specter Skeptical of Domestic Spy Program
NSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Testify
NSA Surveillance Watch: AP Poll- Most Say U.S. Needs Warrant to Snoop? – RECYCLED
NSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: Vice President Cheney Strongly Defends Eavesdropping Operation
Cox & Forkum: One Man’s Whistleblower
Global War on Terror Watch: Why the NSA Monitors Communications of Al-Qaida
NSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: President Bush Defends NSA SurveillanceNSA Leak Case Watch: New York Times’ Reporter James Risen
NSA Leak Case Watch: Justice Deptartment Probing Domestic Spying Leak
NSA Surveillance Watch: President Had Legal Authority to OK Taps
NSA Surveillance Watch: Calls for Congressional Hearings
Technorati Tags: National Security Agency, NSA, Anna Diggs Taylor, Warrantless Surveillance
-
Mitt Romney Watch: Calling Brownback a “Bottom Feeder”
All Flap can say is WOW.
Real class from the Romney campaign.
Previous:
Mitt Romney Watch: Brownback Calls Out Mitt on Abortion
Mitt Romney Watch: McCain Calls Out Mitt on Abortion
Mitt Romney Watch: Flipping on Immigration AGAIN
Mitt Romney Watch: Modulating on Immigration?
Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney
-
NSA Surveillance Watch: Judge Orders Halt to NSA Surveillance Program
***Scroll Down for Updates****
Ann Beeson, the American Civil Liberties Union’s associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs challenging the government’s wiretapping policy, addresses the media in Detroit, in this June 12, 2006, file photo. A federal judge ruled Thursday, Aug. 17, 2006 that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency’s program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
AP: Judge finds NSA program unconstitutional
A federal judge on Thursday struck down President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program, saying it violated the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit is the first judge to rule on the legality of the National Security Agency’s program, which the White House says is a key tool for fighting terrorism that has already stopped attacks.
“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.
The administration said it would appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
“We’re going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference in Washington.
Flap covered the suit when it was first filed here.
Lawsuit #2
The Detroit lawsuit, which names the National Security Agency and its director, said the program has impaired plaintiffs’ ability to gather information from sources abroad as they try to locate witnesses, represent clients, do research or engage in advocacy.
It was filed by the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greenpeace and individuals on behalf of journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations that communicate with people in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere.
A List of the plaintiffs with links is:
American Civil Liberties Union
American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Rabiah Ahmed
Arsalan T. IftikharNational Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Joshua Dratel (Statement)
Nancy Hollander (Statement)James Bamford, journalist/author (Statement)
Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University (Statement)
Christopher Hitchens, journalist/author (Statement)
Tara McKelvey, journalist/author
Barnett Rubin, New York University Center on International Cooperation
Background of Organizations and People Involved in the Lawsuit >>
The ACLU’s Press release is here: ACLU Sues to Stop Illegal Spying on Americans, Saying President Is Not Above the Law.
Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor
Is Flap worried that a lefty Jimmy Carter appointee to the federal bench whose family has been active in Democrat politics for decades wrote a decision that didn’t follow precedence already established in other Federal Circuits?NOPE
But, her decision/order does highlight why elections are important as they decide who is appointed to the bench and issues ridiculous orders.
Flap reported on the legal precedent for the NSA Surveillance Porgram here.John Schmidt who served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the Associate Attorney General of the United States writes President had legal authority to OK taps.
John Hinderaker over at Powerline Blog has It’s Legal
Powerline today has Judge Ignores Precedent, Holds NSA Program “Unconstitutional”
The Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Circuits have so held, as has the special FISA Court of Review. And those cases dealt with domestic warrantless intercepts, as opposed to the international communications that fall within the NSA program.
One of the serious weaknesses of our federal judicial system is that in many cases, plaintiffs can forum-shop for a favorable district or judge. Here, the ACLU, the plaintiff in the case, could have brought the case anywhere in the United States. The ACLU naturally avoided the circuits that had already upheld warrantless surveillance as an executive power; the Sixth Circuit, which encompasses Michigan, has not ruled on the issue, to my knowledge. The ACLU was able to get its case before Judge Taylor, a 1979 Jimmy Carter appointee who was described by the Detroit Free Press as “a liberal with Democratic roots.”
Hugh Hewitt has Jimmy Carter and Ned Lamont Judges
Judge Taylor glancingly deals with SCOTUS’ Keith decision but doesn’t even bother to assess the FISA Appeals Court opinion in In Re Sealed Case, 2002 in which that panel of three federal judges skilled in this area of the law noted:
It will be recalled that Keith carefully avoided the issue of a warrantless foreign intelligence search: “We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents.†407 U.S. at 321- 22.30 But in indicating that a somewhat more relaxed warrant could suffice in the domestic intelligence situation, the court drew a distinction between the crime involved in that case, which posed a threat to national security, and “ordinary crime.†Id. at 322. It pointed out that “the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crimes.†Id.
The main purpose of ordinary criminal law is twofold: to punish the wrongdoer and to deter other persons in society from embarking on the same course. The government’s concern with respect to foreign intelligence crimes, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly to stop or frustrate the immediate criminal activity. As we discussed in the first section of this opinion, the criminal process is often used as part of an integrated effort to counter the malign efforts of a foreign power. Punishment of the terrorist or espionage agent is really a secondary objective;31 indeed, punishment of a terrorist is often a moot point.
The judge doesn’t deal with this passage or other relevant passages not because they are dicta –they are– but because there is no answer to the logic and the obvious conclusion that the NSA program –wartime surveillance aimed not at prosecuiting law breakers but stopping terrorist attacks– is indeed not governed by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions.
No doubt the judge ruled as she understood the Constitution, but she doesn’t understand the Constitution or the war, and her refusal to deal with a higher court’s on-point discussion telegraphs her intellectual insecurity about her “reasoning.” She will be reversed, most likely following a lengthy stay of her order. Implementation of the order would certainly disrupt ongoing surveillance of terrorists and thus endanger innocent lives, and the possibility of that harm should be sufficient to maintain the stay until higher courts intervene to reverse this absurd decision..
Judge Taylor’s opinion is here.
So, is Flap worried about the survival of this necessary program?
NO
The Sixth Circuit will issue a pending an appeal stay (if it already hasn’t) within days (Flap believes an appeal motion has already been filed) and eventually in a year or longer the court will decide in favor of the Department of Justice and the Bush Administration. However, ultimately, the United States Supreme Court will decide the matter.
Stay tuned…….
Update #1
The Washington Post has A Judicial Misfire
THE NATION would benefit from a serious, scholarly and hard-hitting judicial examination of the National Security Agency’s program of warrantless surveillance. The program exists on ever-more uncertain legal ground; it is at least in considerable tension with federal law and the Bill of Rights. Careful judicial scrutiny could serve both to hold the administration accountable and to provide firmer legal footing for such surveillance as may be necessary for national security.
Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA’s program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work — that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA’s program — her opinion will not be helpful.
In other words, Judge Taylor’s opinion is a contrived piece of CRAP – which it is. Flap is not an attorney but the legal arguments he has read supports this opinion.
Update # 2
Captain Ed over at Captain’s Quarters has NSA Decision: Lots Of Emotion, Little Reasoning
The Sixth District Appellate Court slapped a stay on this decision almost immediately, and one suspects that the justices will take a long and skeptical look at Taylor’s scattershot opinion. Whether or not one agrees with the end result, the decision itself is insupportable because Taylor never bothered to provide the support necessary.
How does this play out politically? Had it happened before the plot uncovered by the British last week, I would think it would have damaged the Bush administration. It still might, in the short term. It’s likely to sway moderates to the thought that the program did violate the law, while it’s unlikely to convince die-hards of anything but what they already believed. The exposure of another international and complex plot against airlines might mitigate that and remind moderates and undecideds that we still face an enemy determined to kill as many of us as possible. And if Taylor gets overturned by the 6th, that will only underscore the validity of the program.
I think one can make compelling arguments against the NSA warrantless surveillance program. However, I believe that surveilling enemy communications falls within the executive powers during wartime and does not require FISA approval, a construct that (I believe) violated Article II from its inception. Taylor’s opinion is only the first round anyway; this will go to the Supreme Court before it gets settled for good, and that will likely take place after the present administration leaves office.
Captain Ed agrees with Flap that ultimately this decision rests with SCOTUS. And, it may even be an issue if another vacancy occurs on the high court prior to President Bush leaving office. For now Judge Taylor’s order has been stayed and the NSA program continues.
Related:
From the Left:
Glenn Greenwald
Update #3The Wall Street Journal has President Taylor
Before yesterday, no American court had ever ruled that the President lacked the Constitutional right to conduct such wiretaps. President Carter signed the 1978 FISA statute that established the special court to approve domestic wiretaps even as his Administration declared it was not ceding any Constitutional power. And in the 2002 decision In Re: Sealed Case, the very panel of appellate judges that hears FISA appeals noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal “court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.” We couldn’t find Judge Taylor’s attempt to grapple with those precedents, perhaps because they’d have interfered with the lilt of her purple prose.
Unlike Judge Taylor, Presidents are accountable to the voters for their war-making decisions, as the current White House occupant has discovered. Judge Taylor can write her opinion and pose for the cameras–and no one can hold her accountable for any Americans who might die as a result.
And why the issue of judicial appointments will again be an issue in the 2008 presidential elections.
Update #4Hugh Hewitt has “Off hand, I cannot recall reading an opinion as conclusory and content free as the key portions of this opinion.”Â
If you are amazed by this decision, visit the Senate campaign websites of Tom Kean in New Jersey, Mark Kennedy in Minnesota, Michael Steele in Maryland and Mike McGavick in Washington State and contribute to their victories. These four challengeres are all making excellent runs at Democratic seats, and the best defense in November against more absurd opinions doing more damage to the national security is keeping the Senate Judiciary Committee in control of the GOP.
Indeed…..
Previous:
Technorati Tags: NSA, NSASurveillance, HughHewitt, Powerline, AnnaDiggsTaylor
-
NSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: Eavesdropping and the 2004 Presidential Election
New York Times: Eavesdropping and the Election: An Answer on the Question of Timing
THE NEW YORK TIMES’S Dec. 16 article that disclosed the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping has led to an important public debate about the once-secret program. And the decision to write about the program in the face of White House pressure deserved even more praise than I gave it in a January column, which focused on the paper’s inadequate explanation of why it had “delayed publication for a year.â€
Long and short of it Bill Keller LIED.
Let’s see political manipulation of national security leaks…….
Credibility of Keller and the New York Times = Sub ZERO.
And these MSM types wonder why folks are voting with their feet and canceling subscriptions.
Captain Ed has a longer analysis.
Previous:
Global War on Terror Watch: Recipients of “LEAKS†May be Prosecuted Under the Espionage Act
Global War on Terror Watch: Bill Keller on Face the Nation
Technorati Tags: BillKeller, NewYorkTimes, JamesRisen, EricLichtblau
-
NSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: Former National Security Agency (NSA) Intelligence Analyst Subpoened to Testify Before Federal Grand Jury
Expose The Left: NSA Leaker Is Subpoenaed To Testify Before Federal Grand Jury
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition puts out this press release for immediate release. When reading the wording…consider the source.
On Wednesday, July 26, Russell Tice, former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence analyst and a member of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), was approached outside his home by two FBI agents who served him with a subpoena to testify in front of a federal grand jury. NSWBC has obtained a copy of the subpoena issued for Mr. Tice’s testimony and is releasing it to the public for the first time. The subpoena directs Mr. Tice to appear before the jury on August 2, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the Eastern District of Virginia. Mr. Tice “will be asked to testify and answer questions concerning possible violations of federal criminal law.â€
Russell Tice, the TRAITOR, should have his ASSHAT handed to him and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Now, is the Attorney General FINALLY going to bring prosecutions to these national security “LEAKERS?”
HOPE SO…….
Stay tuned……
Blogosphere:
Previous:
NSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: Russell Tice – New York Times Source
Technorati Tags: RussellTice, NSA, NSASurveillance, NSASurveillanceLeakCase
-
NSA Surveillance Watch: Mark Steyn – “To Connect the Dots, You Have to See the Dots”
Mark Steyn at the Claremont Institute Dinner, December 5, 2005
Chicago-Sun Times: To connect the dots, you have to see the dots
Here are two news stories from the end of last week. The first one you may have heard about. As “The Today Show’s” Matt Lauer put it:
“Does the government have your number? This morning a shocking new report that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans.”
The second story comes from the United Kingdom and what with Lauer’s hyperventilating you may have missed it. It was the official report into the July 7 bus and Tube bombings. As The Times of London summarized the conclusions:
“Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the bomb cell, had come to the attention of MI5 [Britain’s domestic intelligence agency] on five occasions but had never been pursued as a serious suspect . . .
“A lack of communication between police Special Branch units, MI5 and other agencies had hampered the intelligence-gathering operation;
“There was a lack of co-operation with foreign intelligence services and inadequate intelligence coverage in . . .”
Etc., etc., ad nauseam.
So there are now two basic templates in terrorism media coverage:
Template A (note to editors: to be used after every terrorist atrocity): “Angry family members, experts and opposition politicians demand to know why complacent government didn’t connect the dots.”
Template B (note to editors: to be used in the run-up to the next terrorist atrocity): “Shocking new report leaked to New York Times for Pulitzer Prize Leak Of The Year Award nomination reveals that paranoid government officials are trying to connect the dots! See pages 3,4,6,7,8, 13-37.”
How do you connect the dots? To take one example of what we’re up against, two days before 9/11, a very brave man, the anti-Taliban resistance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, was assassinated in Afghanistan by killers posing as journalists. His murderers were Algerians traveling on Belgian passports who’d arrived in that part of the world on visas issued by the Pakistani High Commission in the United Kingdom. That’s three more countries than many Americans have visited. The jihadists are not “primitives”. They’re part of a sophisticated network: They travel the world, see interesting places, meet interesting people — and kill them. They’re as globalized as McDonald’s — but, on the whole, they fill in less paperwork. They’re very good at compartmentalizing operations: They don’t leave footprints, just a toeprint in Country A in Time Zone B and another toe in Country E in Time Zone K. You have to sift through millions of dots to discern two that might be worth connecting.
I’m a strong believer in privacy rights. I don’t see why Americans are obligated to give the government their bank account details and the holdings therein. Other revenue agencies in other free societies don’t require that level of disclosure. But, given that the people of the United States are apparently entirely cool with that, it’s hard to see why lists of phone numbers (i.e., your monthly statement) with no identifying information attached to them is of such a vastly different order of magnitude. By definition, “connecting the dots” involves getting to see the dots in the first place.
Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) feels differently. “Look at this headline,” huffed the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The secret collection of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. Now, are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida?”
No. But next time he’s flying from D.C. to Burlington, Vt., on a Friday afternoon he might look at the security line: Tens of millions of Americans are having to take their coats and shoes off! Are you telling me that tens of millions of ordinary shoe-wearing Americans are involved with al-Qaida?
Of course not. Fifteen out of 19 of the 9/11 killers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. So let’s scrap the tens of millions of law-abiding phone records, and say we only want to examine the long-distance phone bills of, say, young men of Saudi origin living in the United States. Can you imagine what Leahy and Lauer would say to that? Oh, no! Racial profiling! The government’s snooping on people whose only crime is “dialing while Arab.” In a country whose Transportation Security Administration personnel recently pulled Daniel Brown off the plane as a security threat because he had traces of gunpowder on his boots — he was a uniformed U.S. Marine on his way home from Iraq — in such a culture any security measure will involve “tens of millions of Americans”: again by definition, if one can’t profile on the basis of religion or national origin or any other identifying mark with identity-group grievance potential, every program will have to be at least nominally universal.
Last week, apropos the Moussaoui case, I remarked on the absurdity of victims of the London Blitz demanding the German perpetrators be brought before a British court. Melanie Phillips, a columnist with the Daily Mail in London and author of the alarming new book Londonistan, responded dryly, “Ah, but if we were fighting World War Two now, we’d lose.”
She may be right. It’s certainly hard to imagine Pat Leahy as FDR or Harry Truman or any other warmongering Democrat of yore. To be sure, most of Pat’s Vermont voters would say there is no war; it’s just a lot of fearmongering got up by Bush and Cheney to distract from the chads they stole in Florida or whatever. And they’re right — if, by “war,” you mean tank battles in the North African desert and air forces bombing English cities night after night. But today no country in the world can fight that kind of war with America. If that’s all “war” is, then (once more by definition) there can be no war. If you seek to weaken, demoralize and bleed to death the United States and its allies, you can only do it asymmetrically — by killing thousands of people and then demanding a criminal trial, by liaising with terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan and then demanding the government cease inspecting your phone records.
I yield to no one in my antipathy to government, but not everyone who’s on the federal payroll is a boob, a time-server, a politically motivated malcontent or principal leak supplier to the New York Times. Suppose you’re a savvy mid-level guy in Washington, you’ve just noticed a pattern, you think there might be something in it. But it requires enormous will to talk your bosses into agreeing to investigate further, and everyone up the chain is thinking, gee, if this gets out, will Pat Leahy haul me before the Senate and kill my promotion prospects? There was a lot of that before 9/11, and thousands died.
And five years on?
Discuss this blog post and MORE…. at the FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blogs, My Dental Forum.
-
NSA Surveillance Watch: President Bush Defends Scope of NSA Surveillance
President Bush makes remarks at the Celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and Presentation of the President’s Volunteer Service Awards in the East Room of the White House in Washington Friday, May 12, 2006.
ASSociated Press: Bush Defends Scope of Domestic Spying
President Bush defended the scope of the government’s domestic surveillance programs that have riled privacy advocates and threatened to impede the Senate confirmation of Bush’s new pick to lead the CIA.
“The privacy of all Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities,” Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address. “The government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval. We are not trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.”
Without specifically confirming the database effort, Bush defended the intelligence activities he has authorized, saying they are focused on al-Qaida terrorists and their affiliates. He reiterated that they are lawful and that appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, have been briefed on the surveillance activities.
“Americans expect their government to do everything in its power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties,” Bush said. “That is exactly what we are doing. And so far, we have been successful in preventing another attack on our soil.”
Flap has NO concerns of his civil liberties being violated and appreciate the government protecting him and his family from terrorist activity.
And, yes, here is a controlling court case:
A quick note to drive-by journalists about NSA illegally collecting telephone records without first obtaining a warrant.
U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. MARYLAND,
442 U.S. 735 (1979)
No. 78-5374.
Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner’s home.
Held: The installation and use of the pen register was not a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.This is an old story, covered in the New York Times coverage in December 2005 and simply a media attempt to discredit President Bush and derail Michael Hayden’s confirmation as CIA Director.
What will be the fall-out?
NOT MUCH.
The lawsuit filed against Verizon Communications will go nowhere.
The Senate Democrats will cry outrage burt will do nothing to interrupt the collection of data and……
America will be safer…..
Discuss this blog post and MORE…. at the FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blogs, My Dental Forum.
Previous:NSA Surveillance Watch: NSA’s Telephone Data Collection and Analysis Program – Is It LEGAL?
NSA Surveillance Watch: NSA Has Massive Database of Americans’ Phone Calls
NSA Surveillance Watch: Senate Intelligence Committee Decides NOT to Pursue Investigation
NSA Surveillance Watch: Congressional Probe of NSA Surveilance Is in Doubt
NSA Surveillance Watch: Specter Skeptical of Domestic Spy ProgramNSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Testify
NSA Surveillance Watch: AP Poll- Most Say U.S. Needs Warrant to Snoop? – RECYCLEDNSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: Vice President Cheney Strongly Defends Eavesdropping Operation
Cox & Forkum: One Man’s Whistleblower
Global War on Terror Watch: Why the NSA Monitors Communications of Al-Qaida
NSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: President Bush Defends NSA SurveillanceNSA Leak Case Watch: New York Times’ Reporter James Risen
NSA Leak Case Watch: Justice Deptartment Probing Domestic Spying LeakNSA Surveillance Watch: President Had Legal Authority to OK Taps
NSA Surveillance Watch: Calls for Congressional Hearings
Technorati Tags: NationalSecurityAgency, NSA, AssociatedPress, NSASurveillance, NSALeakCase, NewYorkTimes, RasmussenPoll, ArlenSpecter
-
NSA Surveillance Watch: NSA’s Telephone Data Collection and Analysis Program – Is It LEGAL?
President Bush Addresses the media after his remarks to employees of the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, Md. , Jan. 25, 2006.
Power Line: Is It Legal?
There has been a lot of discussion about the legality of the NSA’s telephone data collection and analysis program, most of it not very illuminating. I haven’t had an opportunity to form an opinion, and I’m not an expert in telecommunications law. In my quick review of what seems to be the relevant law, I’ve encountered several puzzling provisions. But one section I haven’t yet seen cited, which seems relevant, is Title 18, Chapter 121, Section 2709 of the U.S. Code. It specifically allows the government to obtain telephone records for purposes of investigating terrorist threats. Here is Sec. 2709 in its entirety; I have highlighted some of the pertinent language:
§ 2709. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records
(a) Duty to provide.–A wire or electronic communication service provider shall comply with a request for subscriber information and toll billing records information, or electronic communication transactional records in its custody or possession made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Required certification.–The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or his designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director, may–
(1) request the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the name, address, length of service, and toll billing records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
(2) request the name, address, and length of service of a person or entity if the Director (or his designee) certifies in writing to the wire or electronic communication service provider to which the request is made that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such an investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(c) Prohibition of certain disclosure.–No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.
(d) Dissemination by bureau.–The Federal Bureau of Investigation may disseminate information and records obtained under this section only as provided in guidelines approved by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence collection and foreign counterintelligence investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, with respect to dissemination to an agency of the United States, only if such information is clearly relevant to the authorized responsibilities of such agency.
(e) Requirement that certain congressional bodies be informed.–On a semiannual basis the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, concerning all requests made under subsection (b) of this section.
So there is no question about the fact that the federal government can obtain anyone’s telephone billing records simply by requesting them, if they are relevant to a terrorism investigation, and the telecom companies “shall comply” with such requests. Under this section, the FBI can pass the phone records on to another government agency, like the NSA, if the information is relevant to that agency’s duties.
Flap doesn’t know if this is the code section that government attorney’s used in their memorandum authorizing the program. Nor, does Flap know if any blanket government request would be permissable under the act. However, it does appear the government has broad powers to ascertain this telephone information if it is relevant to a terrorism investigation.
Now, Senator Specter, will you continue to assist on Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings?
Doubtful…..
Stay tuned as more Bush haters try to drudge up more civil libertarian nonsense to discredit the President and the NSA.
Stay tuned…….
Discuss this blog post and MORE…. at the FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blogs, My Dental Forum.
Previous:NSA Surveillance Watch: NSA Has Massive Database of Americans’ Phone Calls
NSA Surveillance Watch: Senate Intelligence Committee Decides NOT to Pursue Investigation
NSA Surveillance Watch: Congressional Probe of NSA Surveilance Is in Doubt
NSA Surveillance Watch: Specter Skeptical of Domestic Spy ProgramNSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Testify
NSA Surveillance Watch: AP Poll- Most Say U.S. Needs Warrant to Snoop? – RECYCLEDNSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: Vice President Cheney Strongly Defends Eavesdropping Operation
Cox & Forkum: One Man’s Whistleblower
Global War on Terror Watch: Why the NSA Monitors Communications of Al-Qaida
NSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: President Bush Defends NSA SurveillanceNSA Leak Case Watch: New York Times’ Reporter James Risen
NSA Leak Case Watch: Justice Deptartment Probing Domestic Spying LeakNSA Surveillance Watch: President Had Legal Authority to OK Taps
NSA Surveillance Watch: Calls for Congressional Hearings
Technorati Tags: NationalSecurityAgency, NSA, AssociatedPress, NSASurveillance, NSALeakCase, NewYorkTimes, RasmussenPoll, ArlenSpecter
-
NSA Surveillance Watch: NSA Has Massive Database of Americans’ Phone Calls
Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency’s domestic phone record collection program.
USA Today: NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.
NOTE WELL: This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity.
So, what is the point of another security leak on another “SECRET” government program to combat terrorism?
Answer: Somebody in the CIA or NSA does not want Michael Hayden to be confirmed as Director of the CIA.
The White House Reaction:
The White House defended its overall eavesdropping program and said no domestic surveillance is conducted without court approval.
”The intelligence activities undertaken by the United States government are lawful, necessary and required to protect Americans from terrorist attacks,” said Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, who added that appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on intelligence activities.
But, the Lefties in the United States Senate smell blood in the water…..
ASSociated Press:Paper Reports NSA Collecting Phone Records
Leahy sounded incredulous about the latest report and railed against what he called a lack of congressional oversight. He argued that the media was doing the job of Congress.
“Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al Qaida?” Leahy asked. “These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything … Where does it stop?”
The Democrat, who at one point held up a copy of the newspaper, added: “Somebody ought to tell the truth and answer questions. They haven’t. The press has done our work for us and we should be ashamed. Shame on us for being so far behind and being so willing to rubber stamp anything this administration does. We ought to fold our tents.”
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said bringing the telephone companies before the Judiciary Committee is an important step.
“We need more. We need to take this seriously, more seriously than some other matters that might come before the committee because our privacy as American citizens is at stake,” Durbin said.
But, Democrat Senate leaders have been briefed and the NSA programs are within the law. The Democrat Senators have had ample time to either sponsor legislation outlining a modification to the law or file a lawsuit enjoining the President.
But, what have they done?
NOTHING
Why?
Because these secret NSA programs are necessary to defend America from terrorism.
Do they violate Americans’ civil rights and the rights protected under the United States Constitution?
NOPE
And what happens next?
Michael Hayden will have a rough time at his confirmation hearings and Senate Democrats hoping to score political points in the November 2006 elections will bloviate on the Sunday talk shows.
Will the NSA stop these secret programs that protect every day Americans from terrorism?
No Way!
Discuss this blog post and MORE…. at the FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blogs, My Dental Forum.
The National Security Agency (NSA) logo is shown on a computer screen inside the Threat Operations Center at the NSA in Fort Meade, Maryland, January 25, 2006.
From the Blogosphere:
Michelle Malkin: NEWSFLASH: NSA DOING ITS JOB!
Stop the ACLU: New NSA Leaks From USA Today
Outside the Beltway: NSA Has Massive Database of Americans’ Phone Calls
The Volokh Conspiracy: The Other NSA Surveillance Program?
Power Line: NSA Accused of Protecting U.S. From TerroristsÂ
Previous:
NSA Surveillance Watch: Senate Intelligence Committee Decides NOT to Pursue Investigation
NSA Surveillance Watch: Congressional Probe of NSA Surveilance Is in Doubt
NSA Surveillance Watch: Specter Skeptical of Domestic Spy ProgramNSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Testify
NSA Surveillance Watch: AP Poll- Most Say U.S. Needs Warrant to Snoop? – RECYCLEDNSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: Vice President Cheney Strongly Defends Eavesdropping Operation
Cox & Forkum: One Man’s Whistleblower
Global War on Terror Watch: Why the NSA Monitors Communications of Al-Qaida
NSA Surveillance Leak Case Watch: President Bush Defends NSA SurveillanceNSA Leak Case Watch: New York Times’ Reporter James Risen
NSA Leak Case Watch: Justice Deptartment Probing Domestic Spying LeakNSA Surveillance Watch: President Had Legal Authority to OK Taps
NSA Surveillance Watch: Calls for Congressional Hearings
Technorati Tags: NationalSecurityAgency, NSA, AssociatedPress, NSASurveillance, NSALeakCase, NewYorkTimes, RasmussenPoll, ArlenSpecter