Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bullypulpit said:I'm certain people said the same in Stalinist Russia.
Bullypulpit said:I'm certain people said the same in Stalinist Russia. That you fail to recognize these police state tactics for what they are is deeply disturbing. Guilt or innocence is not the issue. The Fourth Amendment is our shield against unreasonable searches, and even the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a warrant for wire-taps against against suspects in the US.
The violation of federal law and the usurpation of the Constitution are the issues, not the guilt or innocence of individual citizens. That the President feels he is above the law and can do as he wishes, without oversight or sanction is the issue.
If you want to live in a police state, move to North Korea. Such tactics have no place in a democracy.
Domestic Intelligence Gathering
I'M EXTREMELY UPSET, and not a little bit conflicted, over the recent revelations by The New York Times (subsequently confirmed by various government officials including the President), that the National Security Agency has been monitoring communications, originating from within the borders of the United States, without a court warrant.
That the existence of this intercept program has become public knowledge is particularly disturbing. Our signals intelligence capabilities comprise some of our most closely guarded national secrets. This type of information is typically highly compartmentalized, meaning most people with access are only briefed on the fraction of the program that they "need to know." The fact that a person who has passed the rigorous background checks required to gain such access would freely discuss any aspect of this program with reporters from The New York Times shows a reckless disregard for our national security.
The source most likely considers himself to be a "whistleblower," motivated by a firmly-held belief that such activities by our government comprise a major violation of the U.S. Constitution -- specifically the Fourth Amendment, which outlaws "unreasonable searches and seizures." That may or may not be the case; I'll leave the detailed analysis of that question to the legal experts. What I do know, from the little information that is available, is this: the monitoring was restricted to international communications that originated or terminated in the United States, and involved a limited number of telephone numbers or email addresses that were associated with known members of al Qaeda. Congressional leaders (including Democrats) were, in fact, briefed on this program. President Bush claims that his authority to order these intercepts derives from his constitutional powers (Article II) as Commander-in-Chief during a time of armed conflict, as declared by the United States Congress. There are some questions whether or not this program complied with, or circumvented, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Let me be clear: whether or not such intercepts continue, this operation is now blown. Our enemies will respond to these revelations by changing to more secure means of communications. Most of us will never know the how deeply this breach will harm our national security, but it is certainly very serious. "Spilling the beans" to the Times was not the proper way to deal with this issue. The leak must be investigated, and the source prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
On the other hand, the issues surrounding this program spotlight the ever-present tension between national security requirements, and our rights and freedoms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
We know that Congressional leaders were briefed on this program. Some claim to have expressed concerns about the legality of such unusual measures. How were those concerns addressed? Were changes subsequently made to the program to ensure that the rights of law-abiding citizens were not violated? The Bush Administration claims that these intercepts were made without acquiring warrants because of time concerns. Was any officer of the courts consulted after-the-fact? Was the judicial branch involved at any time, in any way?
In short, what checks and balances were present, if any?
I'm also concerned with the apparent eagerness on the part of some partisan Democrats to declare a "Constitutional Crisis" and start the ball rolling towards their ultimate goal: the impeachment of President Bush. While the possibility that the Executive Branch might be ignoring the Fourth Amendment is indeed disturbing, the proper remedy in this instance would be to obtain a court injunction halting such intercepts, and to disallow any evidence so garnered to be used in a court of law (as is routine when evidence is obtained through illegal searches in criminal cases). Calling for the President's impeachment seems a little extreme.
If President Bush has done anything wrong by ordering these intercepts, he was clearly motivated by his constitutional duty to protect American citizens from foreign threats. There is no evidence whatsoever of any malicious abuse of power in this case; the targets of this program were members of the same organization that gleefully slaughtered almost 3,000 men, women, and children on that horrible Tuesday morning four years ago.
Congress has the power to investigate this program, and is already making preliminary moves to launch such an investigation. In doing so, they should keep two principles in mind:
1. Avoid further damage to our national security, and
2. Consider the Constitution first, and their partisan interests not at all.
I urge them to follow the above advice, but I doubt that they will -- 2006 is an even-numbered year, after all.
As we say in the Navy, "stand by for heavy rolls."
Posted By Smash
Bullypulpit said:Were it truly political, they would have released the story when it came into their hands, just before the election in '04. But they didn't, at the request of the administration.
Dubbyuh's, and his administration's, outrage over this matter is not because it compromised national security, but because his actions were illegal. The outrage, the press conferences, the addresses are little more than a desperate attempt to cover the President's ass.
Given the lack of oversight of this eavesdropping program, one can only surmise it is being used to surveil Administration opponents at home. Broad, easily accessible powers to conduct domestic surveillance operations are already provided for by FISA. God forbid a Quaker group in Florida should get uppity.
But more to the point, that so many here believe the President is justified in his actions and can, in essence, do whatever he wishes to "defend the homeland" tells me that the terrorists have won. When our civil liberties can be suspended on a whim...When the Constitution can be tossed aside like so much waste paper...When we are so fearful as a people that we will unquestioningly accept such abuses of power...The terrorists have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Just an afterthought...Your analogy to Goatboy's behavior doesn't hold water. He lied to a Grand Jury about consensual sex between two adults and was impeached for it, and he should have resigned. Dubbyuh's lies and actions, however, undermine the Constitution and the rule of law in America.
Dismissed.
Bullypulpit said:If you want to live in a police state, move to North Korea. Such tactics have no place in a democracy.
...I'm not really going to make any attempt to answer questions of legality and constitutionality, because the Internet is full of armchair constitutional scholars right now who're fighting tooth and nail over these questions, generating much heat but very little light. Instead, I'd like to point your attention to some later developments in this case that clearly indicate that there's much more going on here than we initially assumed. When the truth comes out (if it ever does), this NSA wiretapping story will almost certainly be a story not just about the Constitutional concept of the separation of powers, but about high technology.
To return to the last question in the first paragraph, let's take a look at the NYT's own answer. The quotes below are from NYT executive editor Bill Keller's statement on the matter:
A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security...(Emphasis in the above quote and in all subsequent quotes is added.)
As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time.
"We also continued reporting, and in the ensuing months two things happened that changed our thinking... Second, in the course of subsequent reporting we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program -- withholding a number of technical details -- in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record.
So the NYT sat on this story for a year in part because they were concerned that they wouldn't be able to report it without revealing some crucial technical details of how the program works.
Now let's take a look a statement of former senator Bob Graham (D-FL), who was one of the few senators to be briefed on the program. From a new Washington Post article:
"I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy," Graham said, with new opportunities to intercept overseas calls that passed through U.S. switches.
Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly has rounded up a few more quotes like those above (including the NYT quote), that also help make a very good case that what's at issue here is some kind of new NSA surveillance technology:
* Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, telling reporters why Bush didn't simply ask Congress to pass a law making the program clearly legal: "We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be - that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program."This last quote above, the one about TIA, is especially telling. TIA was a massive electronic intelligence gathering program designed to mechanically sift through phone calls, emails, and other electronic communications in order to build pictures of how individuals fit into larger networks. We covered TIA here on Ars, but of all the coverage I think Caesar's initial take on it seems the most directly applicable to the current situation:
* President Bush, answering questions at Monday's press conference: "We use FISA still....But FISA is for long-term monitoring....There is a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to know the distinction between the two....We used the [FISA] process to monitor. But also....we've got to be able to detect and prevent."
* Senator Jay Rockefeller, in a letter to Dick Cheney after being briefed on the program in 2003: "As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance."
This system's purpose would be to monitor communications and detect would-be terrorists and plots before they happen... This project is not interested in funding "evolutionary" changes in technology, e.g., bit-step improvements to current data mining and storage techniques. Rather, the amount of data that the directors are anticipating (petabytes!) would require massive leaps in technology (and perhaps also some massive leaps in surveillance laws). According to DARPA, such data collection "increases information coverage by an order of magnitude," and ultimately "requires keeping track of individuals and understanding how they fit into models."
"Massive leaps in surveillance laws" indeed. TIA became public in 2002, and Congress quickly put the kibosh on it. This is right about the time that Bush secretly signed the executive order authorizing the new NSA wiretap program.
So, are TIA and the NSA wiretapping directive related? That probably depends on what you mean by "related." I doubt seriously they're the same thing, but it's entirely possible that the undescribed new technology used in the NSA wiretapping program was also going to be deployed as a part of TIA's massive data collection efforts.
My main point in bringing up TIA is twofold: 1) TIA-like efforts are still going on (Defensetech catalogs some), and 2) the government has been trying to use new technology, like database tech and voice recognition, for domestic surveillance for a long time. And when I say a long time, I mean well before the current administration came into office.
The domestic electronic surveillance ball really got rolling under the Clinton administration, with the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). CALEA mandated that the telcos aid wiretapping by installing remote wiretap ports onto their digital switches so that the switch traffic would be available for snooping by law enforcement. After CALEA passed, the FBI no longer had to go on-site with wiretapping equipment in order to tap a linethey could monitor and digitally process voice communications from the comfort of the home office. (The FCC has recently ruled that CALEA covers VOIP services, which means that providers like Vonage will have to find a way to comply.) ...
