Reporter Phone Records Being Used to Find Leaks

jackbird writes "Brian Ross, Chief Investigative Correspondent for ABC news says a confidential source informed him that reporter's phone records are being used by the administration to track down leaks. Apparently reporters for the New York Times, ABC News, and the Washington Post are being scrutinized. The fact that ABC News journalists are even seriously wondering about whether the warning is connected to the NSA's domestic surveillance activities indicates just how anxious many people in Washington have become."

Comments

lives are at stake with leaks.

[yagu]

If you're talking to government officials, and there are leaks that potentially endanger lives of agents, and collaterally other agents in the field, you're going to get more than a sideways look from the governmet, as well you should.

If you are a reporter, and you're exchanging calls with anyone on the "list" suspected of leaks why shouldn't the government take a peek. As reported in the article, there is no evidence the government is tapping or listening in to the calls, merely looking at who's talking to whom.

This smacks of journalists pompously elevating their self-importance to levels higher than they deserve. There are many examples of inappropriate treatment of journalists. This doesn't feel like one of them.

(shudder, I suspect I'm going to get hammered on this one)

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[mysqlrocks]

This smacks of journalists pompously elevating their self-importance to levels higher than they deserve.

Most "leaks" are on purpose to manipulate the press into covering something the administration wants them to cover. It's pretty hypocritical for this same administration to then punish those members of the press who were doing their bidding.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[pcidevel]

Yes, because punishing whistleblowers that uncover massive corruption in the government is good for all of us.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[grub]

So you'd rather that Watergate never happened because Deep Throat was thrown in jail?

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[cplusplus]

This smacks of journalists pompously elevating their self-importance to levels higher than they deserve.

Journalists are incredibly important now a days. They are the last line of defence from a completely secret (and thus unaccountable to the public) government. I, for one, don't want a government that can do anything it wants without the people's consent or knowledge. Congress doesn't seem to be doing a good job of oversite lately, so about the only way the public is going to get to know what's going on is good investigative reporting.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[AuMatar]

Lives aren't at stake. The reporters aren't giving out troop movement and defence plans. They're reporting about things like highly illegal wire tapping and domestic surveilance. THis is a heavy handed attempt by the administration to scare whistle blowers out of telling the American people things they need to know. We have laws to protect these people for a reason, the US goverment is flaunting them.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[spun]

As it is becoming more and more obvious that this administration leaked exactly such information, isn't it ironic that they are using phone records to find leakers? Do you think they will be the teensiest bit selective about what leakers they go after? Most leaks aren't about agents, but about government corruption. Another common type of leak is actually government propaganda, disguised as reporting.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Jamesday]

The Nixon Persidency would have preferred that result. It's fairly obvious that this administration considers the press to be their enemy and is willing to use harassment like this both as a weapon and to try to keep the lid on what has been done wrong.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[American AC in Paris]

As reported in the article, there is no evidence the government is tapping or listening in to the calls, merely looking at who's talking to whom.

...and since it's a secret program with no apparent oversight, you can be damn certain that there never will be any evidence of the government tapping or listening to the calls, unless somebody were to leak that information.

The story used to be that we were conducting surveillance by using the FISA courts. Then, it came out that we were actually doing some surveillance without FISA warrants, but it was all overseas. Then, it came out that only one end of a conversation had to be overseas in order for them to perform surveillence without a FISA warrant. Then, it came out that well, we're actually monitoring the telephone traffic of several tens of millions of Americans, but we've got a dang good legal basis that can do fifteen loop-de-loops and a quadruple lutz, depending on what your definition of "is" is--but don't expect us to ever actually justify that in a court of law, because these programs are so very classified that the prosecutors can't be granted the clearance necessary to pursue the cases, sorry.

If you're still willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this matter, I have one helluva deal on a bridge for ya.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[gaspar ilom]

The leakers are mostly pointing out *illegal acts* that are being carried out by our government. Don't we live in a democracy?

The sad fact is that the current adminiistration is often simply trying to hide their illegal/immoral acts by labeling them as "classified."

I would argue that these people who who say they are "defending" America -- have actually helped kill more Americans than the attacks on 9/11.

Think: disaster planning and relief, health care, and more generally: economic policies that affect any number of "quality of life" or even just "life" issues impacting a majority of Americans.

They have carried out many policies (in lieu of known, better alternatives) that had predictable results ahead of time; therefore, their negligence is willful and "deliberate," and not "accidental."

Who is the "we" that is constantly being pointed to as requiring freedom, security, and justice -- and who is actually getting it?

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[On Lawn]

I was going to say, with hundrends of million telephone numbers up for sale for anyone to find information on, why here why now and why this program? But then I read this article, and of course its the media who's concerned projecting onto the populace. And then it all made sense.

There has been a media uproar that just didn't take hold on the populace when it was reported earlier this month that the government agencies were posing as citizens to gain the information. It isn't admissible to the court, but does give good leads and they can always get a warrant later. And it seems people didn't care.

Whether or not I'm comfortable with my phone conversation data being up for sale to the public or government, the uproar makes more sense now. It isn't about national security it is about protecting anonymous sources -- for the media. While I have some reaction to being jerked around by them I'll just continue to take a calm look at what is going on and decide for myself. Now more than ever.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[syphax]

(shudder, I suspect I'm going to get hammered on this one)

I hope you do. Am I the only one that remembers Nixon's enemies list?

The primary issue with all of this news regarding government snooping is oversight. Don't give me this "we're at war," "why do you care if you aren't doing anything wrong" crap. We should have a goverment of checks and balances, which were designed to limit the (almost invariably corrupting) concentration of political power. What happens when the Administration alone gets to decide what constitutes what is "wrong?"

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-Martin Niemoller

I feel like an alarmist raising the specter of the creep of Totalitarianism in the U.S., but how else do you explain this? Don't feed me the war on terror talking points; consider:

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

The "I" here is Gustave Gilbert; the respondent is Hermann Goering.
I realize that by Godwin's Law I've lost this argument already, but if Goering's comments from 60 years ago don't make your spine tingle, what does?

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[pcidevel]

You are right, because the government will be completely trustworthy and will only abuse the power to tap reporter's phones when it's a matter of National Security. And we can use all those other cases where the government didn't lie to us as evidence of how trustworthy and wonderful they really and truly are.

Ohh hey, you have a bit of Kool Aid on your chin, might want to wash that off.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[DarkHand]

They are violating their oaths of secrecy.

I for one don't believe that an oath to secrecy trumps the constitution, or the risk of the destruction of our nation from corruption. Obviously the people releasing this information agree. They believe that our rights and freedoms are more important than keeping damaging secrets. They of all people would know that the goings on that we're not aware of are more damaging to our nation than they are helping. They wouldn't release it otherwise.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[pcidevel]

P.S.: Remember waaaaaay back when when you were desperately trying to protect reporter's rights to not divulge their sources when an administration official leaked classified information (poor poor Scooter, he should have been protected, it's all those other leakers that deserve jail time).. well the Judge in that case ruled that the Fitzgerald could not have the phone records of any reporters, because they are constitutionally protected.. I didn't hear your outrage back then that the government wasn't allowed to look at the records..

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[RevDobbs]

There are policies in place to report corruption or illegal activities in regards to classifired material.

And who are you going to report misdeeds to when ultimatly, the person who heads both the executive branch and the military thinks he can do what ever he pleases?

Whether or not a program is illegal or unconstittutional, leakers have to expect to take a hit. They are violating their oaths of secrecy.

Before they took any oath of secrecy, they took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States; I think that trancends whatever policies -- secret or public -- put into place by the reigning administration.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[k98sven]

Oh yeah. Lots of lives at stake... Let's review the biggest intelligence "leaks" of the last few years:

* The CIA running secret prisons in East Europe
* The NSA's illegal and unconstitutional wiretapping of US citizens without oversight
* The CIA secretly extraditing terror suspects (even from non-US nations) to countries which often use torture, such as Egypt and Afghanistan

I don't see how a single life was endangered by any of those leaks. In fact, they seem like perfectly normal whistle-blowing on a Govenment which is grossly overstepping the bounds of the power granted to it, and avoiding the Congressional checks and balances which exist.

But there's one more leak:
* The exposure of Valerie Plame and an entire CIA front company. Now there we have a leak which actually had the potential to endanger lives. But wait.. who was behind that leak? The White House themselves. - And for what? Petty revenge on a critic.

So we've got an administration here who themselves leak classified intel when convenient to them, who harshly persue those whistleblowers who leak anything which might be damaging to the Administration. An administration who misconstrued, misrepresented, and outright lied about intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War.

And now you expect me to believe that this same Administration, in their quest to find out who's talking to who, is not interested in finding whistleblowers and critics, but rather acting purely out of an interest of protecting national security and saving lives?

Bullshit.

No administration has ever used the intelligence community for partisan poltical gain to the extent that the current one has. None. There are people in the intelligence community, be they Democrats, people critical of these wiretaps, or simply professionals who are pissed off of having their agency's work misused for partisan political goals, and then being the scapegoat once things turn sour. What this bullshit is about is nothing less than an attempt by the administration to purge the agencies of these critics.

It is not about national security. It's not about saving lives. People working in intelligence don't look kindly on that kind of leaks. It is their lives which are at stake. But leaking the fact that they're secretly running prisons - knowledge of that is NOT a threat to national security or lives in the intelligence community.

The only thing that knowledge threatens is the political goals of the Bush administration. If that's what they're going to use the CIA for, then I fully support any CIA employee who does the moral thing and tells the American people what the heck their government is up to behind their backs. Those people are not leakers and traitors. They are heroes and patriots.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Tom]

As reported in the article, there is no evidence the government is tapping or listening in to the calls, merely looking at who's talking to whom.

We call this Signals Intelligence, or more specifically traffic analysis.
It is much more useful and informative than you think, especially if you have an entire agency specialised on it for decades. Like, say, the NSA...

If I know exactly who you spoke to, in which order, at what time and for how long, and I have the reliable communication models developed by the NSA and likes, I can tell an awful lot about what you're up to. Stop thinking in individual calls, think patterns.
Traffic analysis is sometimes more reliable and almost always more difficult to defeat than intercepting the actual content.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[DougLorenz]

I'm really not comfortable with simply letting the administration decide which internal leaks are whistleblowers, and which are national security risks. The fact is that anything that threatens the authority of the administration is considered to be a national security risk by that administration.

I expect that Nixon felt that the leaks which exposed Watergate were threats to national security, and would have stopped them if they could. No administration is happy to have their corruption or other illegal activities released to the media, but if we allowed the government to do whatever they think is necessary, then we are pretty much guaranteeing that they will do things which are not authorized under the Constitution.

Look, I am a Republican myself, and am very politically active. It doesn't matter whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat, both parties are capable of horrendus corruption when they don't have the media actively trying to keep the public informed. I won't hesitate when stating that I am not comfortable with the activities that Bush has gotten involved in lately, but I am confident that if we allow the public to know as much as is possible about what is going on, it will serve as a check upon his powers. This will also encourage him to think twice before he does something really raw...

Allowing the administration to hide behind the cover of "national security" is very dangerous.

Finally, does anyone else see the irony in the Bush Administration going through phone records to identify who leaked the stories which exposed their program of going through people's phone records?

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are policies in place to report corruption or illegal activities in regards to classifired material.

Yeah, that's the path that Sibel Edmonds followed:

While an FBI translator, Edmonds discovered poorly translated documents relevant to the 9-11 attacks and reported the shoddy work to her supervisors. She also expressed concerns about a co-worker who had previously worked for an organization under FBI surveillance and had a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer also under surveillance. In addition, Edmonds claimed that she was told to work slowly to give the appearance that the agency was overworked so it would receive a larger budget, despite a large backlog of documents that needed translating.

But what happened to this rule-follower?

She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks.

Certainly she didn't just give up did she?

Edmonds has been fighting the corruption permeating the FBI since her unfair dismissal and sued to contest her firing in July 2002. On July 6, 2004 , Judge Reggie Walton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Edmonds' case, citing the government's state secrets privilege.

So, following the rules, a translator reports the fact that her supervisor is inept, that there might be compromised agents in the FBI and that some of the materials involved in 9/11 were translated improperly and what happens? She gets fired. She follows the legal option and the Bush administration uses the State Secres Privelage to have her case dismissed entirely.

Seriously, if you were riding on a bus and the driver were drunk, wouldn't you want someone to say something? Or would you rather they wait and call headquarters at the next stop?

Source article [http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18828res2005 0126.html]

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Trigun]

What if the consequences of their actions were to be shipped off to Gitmo? What if it were to be publicly discredited with misinformation? The administration has given reason enough for a whistleblower to be afraid. There is no need for them to become either a martyr or pariah.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

Um, yes, divulging classified information certainly can be whistleblowing, depending on how you look at it.

Step 1: Government does something unconstitutional.
Step 2: Government classifies the fact that it did that thing.
Step 3: Someone with both clearance and a conscience exposes said unconstitutional act, so that they responsible parties might be brought to justice.

*YES* he said it couldnt be done, no matter how you looked at it. But I showed that it could be done!!! go ME!!!!
*self-five*

In all seriousness, however, if you'd like to chime back in and answer how the fuck exposing an unconstitutional domestic spying operatin by the government is going to directly lead to the death of servicemen abroad, I'd like to hear it. This is nothing like a leak exposing an undercover operative who had worked abroad. *cough* this is a domestic operation, engaged in primarily by hackers at computer terminals.
The inviolable nature of the "state security" cry is necessary only in so far as it is justifiably used. Given this, and most other, administration's complete lack of credibility, I will automatically call bullshit when they invoke state security to avoid explaining something illegal/embarrasing they have done to us.

Just to preempt the "well, if we dont unconstitutionally spy on our own populace, we'll have incomplete intell, and our servicemen will walk into ambushes, and terrorists will bomb every major american city into rubble" argument: The ends to not justify the means.

That is why we have a constitution guaranteeing certain freedoms from government oppression.

That is why we are supposedly better than the terrorists: We consider certain actions beneath us.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Ohreally_factor]

The intent is not to punish the journalist

Don't be so quick to discount the possibility that the reporter might be an Al Kaida affiliate. The Bush Administration said they were only data mining phone logs of Americans to go after Al Kaida, so if they're focused on a journalist, that journalist is probably an associate of the terrorists. {cough}

Don't Panic! If you're not a reporter, you have nothing to fear from the government!

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Rob the Bold]

Divulging classified information is not "whistleblowing", no matter how you look at it. There are policies in place to report corruption or illegal activities in regards to classifired material. Leaking the info to reporters is not one of those procedures.

I don't think you're naive, so you're being disingenuous. For one thing, you can't blow the whistle on your boss to your boss. When your boss is the one perpetrating the corruption, you need to go outside the system. If the president can declare anything "classified" for purposes of hiding corruption, the there is no "legitimate" way of reporting the corruption.

Whether or not a program is illegal or unconstittutional, leakers have to expect to take a hit.

This is a particularly misleading argument. You are placing an "oath of secrecy" above the oath to uphold the constitution. If there is no Constitution, there is no America in the sense that we know it.

The whole "lives are at stake" argument is also misplaced. Lives have already been lost. You are writing about taking concrete action to prevent theoretical harm when actual harm has already been done. Crimes have been committed, some known and some unknown. My country's standing in the world has been diminished. If the "procedures" you speak of had been followed by the men in charge in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess now.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[pcidevel]

And the article is about the executive branch of the government proactively monitoring the phone lines of reporters in case they talk to a "leaker".

Your "zomg it's classified information nub!" argument almost holds water, until you realize that there is a Judicial branch of the government meant to oversee these types of activities specifically to prevent abuse by the Executive. If the Executive is willing to get court orders to do this type of monitoring, then it's within the letter of the law, else it's just abuse of power to stop dwindling poll numbers.

But keep on listening to the spin and disregard the law, because our National Security is at stake.. :p

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[sbrown123]

Did you even read what you just wrote? Read it again. Here, I'll point out the problem:

My point, and my only point, is that the leakers knew the consequences of what they were doing

Which was followed by:

If they believe what they were doing is right, why do they hide?

Why in the hell would someone openly try to be punished for doing the right thing from those who are doing wrong or evil? Have you ever heard of the Witness Protection Program? Why do you think they hide witnesses?

Guess people shouldn't expect someone with a sig of "666" to understand right from wrong or complex subjects like morality.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[pcidevel]

Nice try, bravo.

As I pointed out below, however, Fitzgerald tried to get the phone records of the reporter (AFTER the fact, not an attempt to monitor ongoing communications from the reporter, which is an even WORSE offense, imho) and the court denied his request, citing the constitutional privledges of the press.

So even in a case where the leaked classified information did in fact danger lives, it was decided by the court that the phone records of journalists were protected.

Again, good try.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[BalanceOfJudgement]

"Who decides what is a damaging secret, for that matter?"

There's a standing rule in the military that you don't carry out illegal orders from your commanding officer. No Western military tribunal will accept the excuse "I was just following orders." This is because morality can't be put down in a book as a list of numbered, sanctioned rules - we would always miss at least one (and more likely miss thousands).

Soldiers are not expected to be machines, contrary to popular belief; they have to morally evaluate the orders they are given, because it is their responsibility to stand up and say "NO!" if they are given an illegal order (like "Ok, let's take some embarassing pictures of some of our prisoners over there. Say cheese!").

Every American citizen has the same responsibility, ESPECIALLY those with security clearances. It is often only they that will ever be aware of abuses being carried out by our government. There are no hard and fast rules for recognizing unethical or immoral behavior; it is up to us, as moral, thinking beings, to figure it out.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Ohreally_factor]

Which of the following leaks have put exposed field agents and put them at potential risk?

1) Secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe

2) Warrantless taps on calls going into and out of the US by the NSA

3) Database of American call records assembled by the NSA

4) Monitoring of reporters phone calls by as yet unnamed federal agency

5) Identifying CIA case officer to scare a whistle blower

So far, Novak is the only "journalist" who has put anyone in potential danger, and we know the leak came out of the Vice President's office.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[DougLorenz]

You are partially correct... There is evidence that some reporters will give let illegal behavior slide when it is conducted by an administration that they are ideoligically allied with.

In the past this has been more of a problem than it currently is, since so much of the media was dominated by individuals who are positively inclined toward Democrats. Now we have a little greater diversity in the news media, and if a Democrat administration tried to get away with anything illegal, we have Fox News and talk radio that would be on them in an instant. We also now have the blogosphere that can often drive news stories as well...

We don't need to have EVERY media channel screaming at the first sign of inappropriate activities, but we should have at least some reporters looking. The fact that the public might find out is an excellent check on government power.

It was just two reporters at a single newspaper that broke the Watergate story wide open.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Rob the Bold]

They then have to face the consequences of their actions.

By consequences, do you mean we give them some sort of recognition for risking their careers (and more) for the greater good of preserving our Constitutional system of government?

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Ohreally_factor]

Thank you, brother Republican. If our party is going to have any credibility going forward, it will be because a few of us recognize that Bush and his followers have betrayed this nation.

Frankly, if it is true that the administration is monitoring the calls of reporters, the mind boggles (and yes, the irony increases the boggle). It's insane and stupid that they'd do this at this time. I once thought that Clinton was the epitome of arrogance during the Lewinsky scandal, but this is so much worse. What are they thinking?

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[spun]

Facts have a well known liberal bias.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[shutdown -p now]

Who decides? Why, one's conscience, of course.

And he already gave you an objective criterion: when keeping a secret leads to violation of the Constitution, then it is time to come out.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[EQ]

Shamne is you have one point completely wrong:

The "wiretapping" is legal - as long as at lesat one end is in a forgien nation, the NSA, as directed by the PResidane under article III of the Constitution, does have the power to "wiretap" without warrant. This goes back to WW2 and FDR.

As for the CIA secret prisons - try fact checking - the Boston Globe (hardly a right wind bastion that) investigated as did others and there is no evidence that such prisons exist or existed - the conlcusion many have come to is that it was a fabricated story used to entrap leakers.

"I don't see how a single life was endangered by any of those leaks."

And you were trained as an intellgience analyst when and where? Your criticisms of this on an intelligence basis are as invlaid as they would be to a neurosurgeon (unles you happned to be either an intelligence analyst or a neurosurgeon of course - then again you're posting flames to slashdot so...)

Certainly such severe accusations as you make require at least amodicum of proff, none of which has been produced.

Stop the conspiracy truck, take off the tinfol hat and *gather*evidence* - all of it, not jsut what agrees with you and dont discard that which disagrees with you (like evidence that there is atrror thret to the US). Paranoid hysteria is not the right way to bring such charges (your error), nor is it a way to secure the nation against an implacable enemy (Bush's error).

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Ohreally_factor]

1) . . .

Put agents *actually* in the field at risk

How? How does it put individual agents at risk?

. . . puts Europeans at risk in the event that terrorists attempt a rescue . . .

I think you watch too many movies.

2) . . . 3) . . . 4) . . .

Put American service members and civilians at risk by interfering with legitimate intelligence operations.

Overly broad, and you're ignoring that persons on US soil have Constitutional protections, regardless of whether or not the end result is criminal prosecution. If you're going to engage in domestic spying, you need effective oversight from the other two branches of government. If the executive branch deceives the other branches, then the American people's only recourse is thru oversight by the press.

Basically, you're just using a smoke screen. Why not take it to the extreme? How many service members' lives could we save if we lived in a complete police state where the executive could do whatever it wished?

You're basically saying, "In theory", and I'm not willing to trade my civil liberties for your "In theory, lives could be put at risk".

5) The only ACTUAL disclosure of an agent's identity, and you say conveniently say that her ID was no longer relevant. Meanwhile, anyone she had contact with could be in danger, regardless of whether or not she was their case officer. Innocent people might come to harm, let alone filed agents. And what sort of effect does this sort of disclosure have on field agents, knowing that your bosses will hang you out to dry, not merely for political expedience, but to attack political critics!

Basically, you can apologize all you want for the Bush administration, but as far as this Republican is concerned, your apology is no longer accepted.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[sgt_doom]

puts Europeans at risk in the event that terrorists attempt a rescue

Gee, some bad a** Muslim who didn't care for his neighbor and turned him or her in under the fiction of being tight with al Qaeda is not on their list to be rescued - assuming there was an actual organization that existed - and seeing as how we have to rely upon the Bush Administration for such evidence (which hasn't been forthcoming, and somehow I don't think this administration has established any track record on telling the truth,

There *is* a war going on and I am not referring to Iraq.

You are right, Iraq is not a war - it is an invasion and occupation by foreign troops - and a rebellion against said occupiers.

A damn smart thing to do in order to do traffic analysis and discover covert networks.

Funny, J. Edgar Hoover said the exact same thing about his secret political files....

Reporters have a right to publish what they learn, they do not have a right to break the law to acquire that knowledge.

And the prez, vice-prez, Rumsfeldstilskin, and Condo Rice are not bound by those same laws????

Real combat vets do not support an Imperial Army - that's why the Founders believed in citizen-soldiers only]

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[modecx]

The Republican species is extinct. I fail to see why people identify themselves with the party, except when they're using other people who call themselves Republicans as a source of polotical power.

The way I see it, the rug was pulled out from under the normal Republicans, and the neo-conservatives have taken their place using the people we normally associate as Republican to power their way up to the top. Naturally, being Republicans, they still vote Republican, because that's just what they do, and the New Republicans have taken advantage of this.

The neo-conservatives are like Cuckoo birds: they've laid their eggs in the Republicans' nest, the Republicans, serving as foster parents, have hatched the Cuckoo-Conservatives' eggs and have fed their chicks well. Soon enough, I expect that the Cuckoo-Conservative's offspring will push the Republican chicks out of the nest... Maybe we can call them Libertarians!

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Ohreally_factor]

I don't know if I should even dignify this with a response, but:

Try on Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan for size. You might not agree with their politics, but they were giants, especially in comparison to the moral midget we currently have occupying the oval office.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Scudsucker]

Try on Teddy Roosevelt

Yup. Bit of a racist dick, but ya gotta love the trust-busting.

Dwight Eisenhower

Yup. But next to today's GOP, he'd almost be a communist by now.

Ronald Reagan

No thanks. He had bucketloads of charisma, but not much else. Inventing the multi-trillion dollar defecit and helping to get the God-gun nut-free market jihad rolling weren't his most notable achievements. I would take Reagan on his worst day over Bush on his best day in a heartbeat, however.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[joss]

> We didn't attack Iraq, we attacked its government.
> There is a huge difference.

No, there really isn't. In no war that I can think of did
the aggressors not claim they were attacking the regime
rather that the country or its people. eg Germany claimed,
and even somewhat believed, that when they invaded Russia
they would be greated as liberators for freeing the Russian
people from Stalin's yoke. [btw, fuck Godwin]

> FYI, you forget a couple of things: the term "illegal"
> has no meaning outside the context of a nation,
> and "war crimes" is supposed to describe actual crimes
> committed during wartime, not simply an unjust war itself.
> Tone down the rhetoric.

Part of a nations law depends on the treaties that it has signed up for.
A signed treaty is considered by the constitution to be legally binding
so breaking it is illegal.

> "war crimes" is supposed to describe actual crimes
> committed during wartime, not simply an unjust war itself.

Wrong again, launching a war of agression is the number one war
crime from which all others flow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes

What is it, opposite day ?

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Ohreally_factor]

Congress wasn't briefed. The full committees weren't briefed. A few members of congress were briefed.

Effective oversight requires the ability to discuss, even if it's behind close doors. The tiny handful of congress people that were given a peek were not allowed to discuss the matter with anyone, consult with their own experts or aides, or ask questions after the fact. Attempts to glean more information were stonewalled.

What you are calling oversight isn't oversight in any meaningful sense.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[Urusai]

I can't agree with that Reagan assertion. He has the same fiscal policy as Bush, i.e., cut taxes, borrow, spend like crazy, run up a massive debt. That's not fiscal conservatism, that's plain irresponsibility.

The big difference is that Reagan spent on programs that "trickled down" to the middle class by hiring a lot of technical people. Bush's policies don't do this. Getting money to the middle class is guaranteed to make a country prosper, which is why Reagan's approach seemed to work. For a little while.

Re:lives are at stake with leaks.

[SmokedS]

Basing a war on lies is wrong for the person who does it, but our soldiers, the people GP was talking about, did not base their actions in this ware on lies. They based them on fairly accurate opinions of the Iraq situation built up over the last 12 years.

You know I'm amazed some americans still believe this.

The Downing street memo
Doubts, dissent stripped from public version of Iraq assessment
CIA leak illustrates selective use of intelligence on Iraq
Bush talking on the political advantages of war in 99

We didn't attack Iraq, we attacked its government. There is a huge difference. The country as a whole still suffers consequences, but that doesn't diminish the distinction.

The people of Iraq may not agree. I sure as hell don't. Collateral damage is newspeak:
U.S. invasion responsible deaths of over 250,000 civilians in Iraq
THE REAL WMD'S IN IRAQ - OURS
Displaced Iraqis 'living like animals'
'unknown Americans' are provoking civil war in Iraq
The Missing Girls of Iraq

Good stuff!

[grub]

Send all these freedom-hating reporters who seek the so-called "truth" to Gitmo!

Re:Good stuff!

[AuMatar]

Who needs the truth when you have truthiness!

Re:Good stuff!

[TubeSteak]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tru thiness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

The truthiness of this statement is 100%

The most worrying part...

[Ant P.]

Without reading the article, it's not obvious at first glance which country the summary's referring to...

Re:The most worrying part...

[Tackhead]

> Without reading the article, it's not obvious at first glance which country the summary's referring to...

In Soviet Russia, people listen to their government!

Re:The most worrying part...

[chgros]

Without reading the article, it's not obvious at first glance which country the summary's referring to...
Well, any country with a New-York and a Washington.

I (heart) Big Brother!

[khasim]

Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

Of course, having an inside contact at the government is something to hide.

Hmmm, need to update that a little bit. "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."

Re:I (heart) Big Brother!

[Jamesday]

Having a contact inside the government isn't something to hide. This is a way to intimidate contacts and discourage entirely legal contact with the press. Perhaps you're forgetting that phone calls have innocent content most of the time and that most relationships have nothing at all wrong in their conduct?

Re:I (heart) Big Brother!

[drooling-dog]

Hmmm, need to update that a little bit. "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."

It's worse than even that, actually. What makes you think that people inside the government won't misuse their power and access to information for purely private purposes?

For example: If you run a business and one of your competitors has an inside track to the gatekeepers of this information, I'd say it's time to start worrying...

Re:I (heart) Big Brother!

[hoggoth]

> ..."principles"...
> ..."principals", a word that shares its derivation with "prince"...

Aaaaaugh! Oh God! Oh God! Make it stop! I know what you want me to say! DO IT TO HER! DO IT TO HER! DO IT TO THE ONE I LOVE! Correct HER spelling! Just don't correct my spelling anymore!

Oh.... what have I done... I've been broken...

Re:I (heart) Big Brother!

[timeOday]

For that matter, the administration might find it interesting to datamine another certain social network you may have heard about, the Democratic Party. Oh how sweet it is to blow the lid off your opponent's marital infidelity or his brother's shady business dealings a couple weeks before an election. Besides, if you just know your political opponent would be weak on terrorism, isn't defeating him really a matter of national security, even if it requires a bit of spying?

Re:Haha..

[crotherm]

You mean how Bush outed Plame and thus caused the undercover company that watched Iran's nukes to fold? That kind of leak?

where's the al-queda connection?

[ActionAL]

I thought the u.s. government was only supposed to be looking at calls to/from al-queda persons. At least that is what they keep repeating in defending their nsa spying on u.s. citizens fiasco. I guess it's just another lie.

Re:where's the al-queda connection?

[lawpoop]

I will tell you what their line will be: Our domestic programs are to protect us against terrorism, and any compromising of that program exposes us to and increased terror risk. Therefore, any leak inside the government is a threat to the anti-terror efforts.

IMNSHO, this is one of the scariest things that has happened in the US in my lifetime.

Re:where's the al-queda connection?

[Jafafa Hots]

I agree. Everything up until now has just pissed me off, enraged me, upset me, worried me, etc...

This latest thing just goddamned fucking SCARES me. The government tracing the phone calls of journalists to track down their sources, sources of stories that reveal questionable and possibly illegal government actions... damn. Just fucking DAMN. In America. Not some tin pot south american dictatorship, not in the USSR, but right here in the US.

It's proper to be enraged when others are being made the targets unfairly... but now WE'RE the targets.

I feel like hanging black crepe - I'm in mourning for my country.

Ah Ain't No Crook

[American AC in Paris]

If the President were to wake up tomorrow morning and decide that Howard Dean needs to be monitored because the President believes Mr. Dean may be the recipient of leaked information, what is there to stop him from ordering the NSA to do just that, no questions asked? If the monitoring turned up all sorts of politically interesting information but no ties to terrorists, what stops the President from simply taking whatever information was gathered and using it for political gain?

Is there any oversight of this program whatsoever?

Re:Ah Ain't No Crook

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I'm sure GW Bush is an excellent person and can be trusted with anything at all. But to the 29% that think GW Bush is a great president I ask you: How are you so sure that the NEXT president is going to be as trustworthy as the current president?

Ah, OK, Now I see how you know the trustworthiness of the next president. I forgot about that. Diebold. LOL.

Re:Ah Ain't No Crook

[the_demiurge]

That's the scariest part of the whole thing. There is no oversight whatsoever unless Congress manages to do something personally.

The justice department attempted to investigate the NSA spying program, but they were denied a security clearance. With this sort of political climate, the public has to rely on leaks from people inside to even know what's going on.

Re:Ah Ain't No Crook

[morcheeba]

With this sort of political climate, the public has to rely on leaks from people inside to even know what's going on.

Forget that... the Congress has to rely on leaks to know what's going on! Only 4 of the 535 members were briefed on the domestic/international warrant-less wiretaps. Who knows how many were briefed on this new privacy invasion.

Re:Ah Ain't No Crook

[Akoma The Immortal]

So let me get this straight..

The JD (Governement) was denied a security clearance to investigate the wired taping by the NSA (a Governement's agency)?

WTF???

I am dreaming this or what?

Re:Ah Ain't No Crook

[aussersterne]

You are not dreaming. And the most important thing you can do is to TELL YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY and give them links to these stories (that get buried so quickly) at reputable news sources.

There's still this mentality out there that no matter how much Bush seems to suck, nothing *really wrong* can happen with the US government simply because "this is America," and anyone who says that we're in dire straits is really just a black helicopters tinfoil hat freak.

And all the while, the black helicopters are gathering overhead and the supply of tinfoil to make hats has been silently cut off. Things really are very bad right now (do a little more research into these cases, and into the name Russell Tice, you'll be shocked at what you find) but the public is absolutely unaware of it, and because "big media" won't panic, they refuse to think anyone who does panic is sane.

The best thing any of us can do is go to friends and family who trust our judgment and tell them that things are very, very bad with the US government right now and the 2006 election *may actually be* the last possible turning point, beyond which there is no return.

This genie is not going back in the bottle. We are stuck with these departments and a national information gathering infrastructure that is not only monitoring citizens phones, positions (via cell phone tracking), and habits (via bank/credit account tracking), but that is also strong enough to simply leave 99% of congress in the dark about such operations, and to simply brush off official investigations when the remaining 1% get freaked about what they *do* know.

But what we can do is decide to try to acknowledge and control the genie by selecting the next administration(s) carefully with our votes, rather than conceding to the genie's assurances that genie's don't exist, that nobody that seems to be missing is actually missing, that nobody *really* needs a trial, that torture and secret detention aren't *really* all that bad...

Re:Ah Ain't No Crook

[rainman_bc]

the 2006 election *may actually be* the last possible turning point, beyond which there is no return.

When only 65% of you even bother to register to vote, and of those only 62% actually vote (totallying about 35% of America)... It's really sad that it only takes ~18% of the population to elect a President.

And you like to think you're defending democracy, when your same country who is indifferent to it.

Re:Ah Ain't No Crook

[cold fjord]

You should reread the article. The Justice Department wasn't reviewing the NSA program, an office in the Justice Department wanted to review the role of the Justice Department's own lawyers who were advising the NSA. This looks like it may have been politically motivated at the request of Rep. Maurice Hinchey.

A key sentence in the article is this:

In February, the OPR announced it would examine the conduct of their own agency's lawyers in the program, though they were not authorized to investigate NSA activities.

To put is simply, this was never their turf to begin with. They overstepped their authority and were denied. Nothing to see.

With this sort of political climate, the public has to rely on leaks from people inside to even know what's going on.

The public has no right to know the details of the most highly classified intelligence programs the country has. How do you think that 300,000,000 people are going to keep the secret from the bad guys? Oversight is the role of Congress and the rest of the Executive branch. Congress was notified, as is customary, and the Court was briefed about this program.

A significant part of your fear seems to be based on misunderstanding.

Ignorance is Strength

[StefanJ]

[searing sarcasm]
If leakers are allowed to reveal to reporters how incompetent, corrupt, and dishonest our leaders are, the terrorists have won.
[/searing sarcasm]

Re:Haha..

[swngnmonk]

I'm calling BS - name one story broken by any media organization that precipitated a terrorist attack.

Plain and simple, this is a way for the powers-that-be to clamp down on news that makes them look bad.

Re:Haha..

[Spytap]

Looks like the commies are going to get owned.

Every time the New York Times or the Washington Post leaks about some secret program that is used in the war on terror, therefor invalidating it, I wonder to myself if they will take responsibility for the next terrorist attack.

God Forbid the terrorists be blamed for the attacks. Much better to use the fear of terrorism to fight against whatever political beliefs you disagree with, right?

Man, they've sure taught you well haven't they...

Re:Haha..

[flooey]

Looks like the commies are going to get owned.

Yeah, because media that's critical of the government is a cornerstone of communist regimes.

Re:Great!

[grub]

Every time a Marine babykiller is wasted in Iraq, Allah's cock goes just a little deeper up Jesus' ass.

Wrong.

[TheNoxx]

Dead wrong. The reason we have journalistst and freedom of the press is because we can't trust the government. 99% of the time, the leak is someone who can't take whistleblower status but wants to tell the public about wrongdoing in the government. Should gool ol' dubya have been allowed to keep the leak about the secret CIA prisons from escaping? Absolutely not. But it's okay for him to out an active CIA agent, Mrs. Plame?

Read the fucking constitution and look up some judicial records before you open your big, dumb mouth please. The law is very specific about protecting journalistic sources, there is supposed to be no way around it.

Re:Wrong.

[Bob9113]

The reason we have journalistst and freedom of the press is because we can't trust the government.

Well said, and to the grandparent, I would go a step further.

Even if/when you can trust the gov't, it is your duty as a US Citizen to not trust the government. Try reading the Declaration of Independance sometime. It makes it pretty clear that your obligation as a citizen of this great nation is to defend it against all aggressors, foreign and domestic. Defend the nation, not the government. It is not necessary now (IMO), but may someday become necessary to defend this nation against the government, just as was done in 1776. The media is the fourth estate that guarantees that it is possible for us to know when we must fulfill that duty.

To make it more explicit, while I do not know nor automatically believe that such is the case here, any attempt to prevent the media from fulfilling their role as the fourth estate is every bit as treasonous as trying to short-circuit one of the three branches of government.

If you don't feel you can live up to this obligation, you are not required to stay in this country. Our Founding Fathers had some very big and difficult goals. It is times like these that test our resolve to live up to their ideals.

Re:Wrong.

[Mr. Slippery]

Not to be an ass, but what secret CIA prisons? The ones that the EU investigated and found no proof of...

Ahem.

"The CIA has, on several occasions, clearly been responsible for kidnapping and illegally detaining alleged terrorists on the territory of (EU) member states, as well as for extraordinary renditions," Claudio Fava said in his first interim report of the European Parliament's probe into the alleged CIA abuses.

The article you cite says "De Vries [the CIA-abuse denier] came under sharp criticism from the EU parliamentarians for refusing to consider earlier testimonies from a German and a Canadian who described to the committee how they were kidnapped and imprisoned by foreign agents, and from a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who alleged that British intelligence services used information obtained under torture".

Asserting that the EU investigated and found no proof of CIA kidnapping may have a comforting feel of "truthiness" for you, but I'm afraid that reality once again is showing a liberal bias.

Re:Wrong.

[Bob9113]

An unfortunate sentence in an otherwise splendid post.

Yeah, agreed. I regretted it after hitting submit. It was just an impulsive desire to turn that bloody phrase back on one of the "support the gov't blindly" people.

FWIW, I also regret the "these are the times" part. I actually don't think we are at that level. (but perhaps I being overly prudent, or disposed to suffer, haha)

Re:Haha..

[Dis*abstraction]

Every time America angers the Middle East with its hypocrisy by torturing terror suspects or by denying them human rights at Gitmo, I wonder if the Bush administration will take responsibility for the next attack they provoked.

"There is no crime in the Soviet Union"

[hirschma]

That was the first line of the first college lecture I ever had. Although the absolute veracity of the statement is likely untrue, the blunt assertion was given to make one point: Give up your rights, have more "security".

The point is this: leaks, crime, terrorism, etc. are a REQUIRED side effect of freedom. Americans will never get that, and will be happy to toss liberty away in order to prevent nebulous bad things from happening.

The United States is truly starting to resemble the old Soviet Union in so many ways. The Soviets had official state media; we have totally co-opted media outlets. The Soviets had strong controls on copy machines; we have DRM'd/watermarked copy machines (and output devices). The Soviets had one party rule; we have outright one party rule right now, which stemmed from effective one-party rule of the past (seems that the Democratic-Republican party has split, and one side came out on top). The Soviets had no expectation of privacy... and soon, neither will we.

The big difference is that the Soviets used an iron fist, as opposed to the USA's velvet glove, to smother freedom. The net result is the same.

Re:"There is no crime in the Soviet Union"

[swanriversean]

"The point is this: leaks, crime, terrorism, etc. are a REQUIRED side effect of freedom. Americans will never get that, and will be happy to toss liberty away in order to prevent nebulous bad things from happening."

Very true, but I don't think that this only applies to Americans. Given the right circumstances this can (and has) happened in most (all) Western democracies (even if it was only a minority group that has been repressed).

People are always willing to make some sacrifices of freedom for added security, and when politians can get them whipped up about a particular threat they are willing to give up more (especially if they think they really aren't the ones who are losing freedom). I think it is wholely expected that Americans are trading in freedoms for security given 9/11 and the general trend in society to avoid any sacrifices or pain (especially on a personal level).

I wonder what the people will have to do to get these freedoms back once they decide they are no longer warrented by threats to their security? Of course, as I think we already see in many respects, the government will continue to tell the people that the next threat is even worse than the previous one, and they just need the people to give up a little more freedom. It really is like 1984.

MOD PARENT UP

[thefirelane]

This is exactly the point of checks and balances... and it is something all the other posts about 'they should stop leaking programs that help us fight terrorists' are missing.

There is not reply to this other than 'we don't think the president would do this'

Well... "conservatives"... this wasn't the point of founding this country What about the next president, or the one after that... still trust them?

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Ohreally_factor]

Please don't lump the Bush operatives and true believers with patriotic conservatives who oppose this Imperial Presidency. It's become increasingly obvious to those not brainwashed that the President and his men, as well as many in the formerly great GOP, are power mad and corrupt.

A shock?

[Billosaur]

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.

Come on. Brian Ross, big time investigative journalist for ABC News, didn't realize that this was an issue until now? Even before the revelations about the NSA it would have been prudent to avoid using the samephone to contact informants or have them contact you. Pay phones, throwaway cell phones, heck even courtesy phones in hotel lobbies -- I could see them using all sorts of phones to get in touch with people, so as not to leave a visible trail. After all, phone records are accessible legally by the cops, and they could certainly pull phone records for a reporter if they thought the reporter was involved in something nefarious, though I believe they require a warrant (IANAL).

And for those of you naive enough to believe that because all the NSA is getting is phone numbers, perhaps the phrase "reverse lookup" has not passed your ear recently, but nowadays you can even do it through Google. Privacy is tissue-paper compared to what it used to be. I suspect an unlisted number isn't even really unlisted anymore.

Re:Down with Old Men!

[apflwr3]

Neat. Of course these "Old Men" you speak of were your age once, and you will be one of them one day, so, you know, there you go.

RTFA

[oh_my_080980980]

"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."

That should make a chill go up your spine! So much for the 1st Amendment.

This has NOTHING to do with protecting undercover agents as someone put it. If it was, then why isn't Robert Novak behind bars! Why hasn't Robert Novak's phone records been confiscated!! He was the one that outed Valerie Plame-Wislon. Oh and the Scooter Libbey case clearly shows the Bush Whitehouse passed along her information so she can be exposed to the public. Thus why are you pretending that this is anything more than trying to prevent the people from finding out about illegal spying activities of the Bush Administration.

Nice job comrade!

Remember When . . .

[Badgerman]

. . . we supposedly had no worries over calls being tracked inside the country? That it was only suspected terrorists. Apparently that was, no surprise, a lie.

Though leaking classified information is obviously somehting to be concerned about, this sounds more like someone's casting a wide net to try and catch a few fish. It's the kind of thing that's ripe for abuse, and smells like an unwarranted search and siezure (of data).

So, what will next week bring? All our phones are tapped? It seems every week or so things get worse . . .

Re:Nothing to see Here.... move along

[steveargonman]

It is standard police procedure in a criminal investigation to subpoena or to get a search warrant for telephone records.

Exactly.. when you have a warrant or subpoena. Neither of which they have now.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[LordKazan]

a false sense of national security does not come before the law or the constitution

the government under bush is violating both

Re:Nothing to see Here.... move along

[moochfish]

It is standard police procedure in a criminal investigation to subpoena or to get a search warrant for telephone records. Nothing new or sensational to see here, move along.

Subpeona? Search warrant? Crime or no crime, this article makes no mention of those. Have you been reading the news lately?

A global trend we sure could live without?

[D4C5CE]

Over in Europe, another agency's hands have allegedly just been caught in a very similar kind of cookie jar indeed.

Standard Police procedure

[Aexia]

It is standard police procedure in a criminal investigation to subpoena or to get a search warrant for telephone records.

Somehow, I doubt the administration bothered with technicalities like "warrants".

Re:Standard Police procedure

[jsac]

We know that they did not bother with such technicalities. They explicitly refused to get an order from the FISA court, when Qwest asked for one.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[stinerman]

This case is about national security.

Are you sure? I'm not.

I got $20 that says Fox News won't be checked.

[khasim]

Having a contact inside the government isn't something to hide.

You would think so, wouldn't you?

I mean, I'm sure that there are a lot of calls made to "reporters" at Fox News. But I'll bet $20 that we're not going to hear about any phone records of Fox News "reporters" being checked.

Makes you wonder, eh?

This is a way to intimidate contacts and discourage entirely legal contact with the press. Perhaps you're forgetting that phone calls have innocent content most of the time and that most relationships have nothing at all wrong in their conduct?

That's why I put in the "Those who have no criticism of the government have nothing to fear."

If you're "reporting" a "leak" that hurts Bush and Co's political opponents ... no problem.

If you're "reporting" a "leak" that says Bush and Co are doing good ... no problem.

If you're reporting a leak that says Bush and Co are doing something that may be illegal ... expect an investigation from the FBI, CIA, NSA and a speech from Bush saying that you're a traitor and hurting our troops and our security and helping the terrorists.

Re:I got $20 that says Fox News won't be checked.

[Facekhan]

FOX actually stands for Fueling Our Xenophobia.

What a surprise...

[Pedrito]

Boy, I never saw this one coming. The government using their phone number records to investigate things that aren't related to terrorists. I sure thought they were going to stick to protecting us from terrorists with this data.

I have no problem with the government obtaining a warrant to get this information. But that's not what they've done. What they've done is about as good as tapping phones. Anyone who sees it differently has WAY too much trust of the U.S. government.

And I know that they'll argue that these leaks somehow put us in danger of a terrorist attack. I mean, if the subject had been something as mundane as outting a CIA operative, then of course, they'd be sure to overlook it, particularly if the leak came out of the offices of the President and Vice President.

It amazes me that people aren't yelling and screaming about this and marching in front of the White House. People in this country have become too complacent and they're going to lose the freedoms that so many people have died to protect over the years. And when it comes to that, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves.

We can blame Bush and his administration, but when it comes down to it, they're not to blame. Because we know what they're doing and we're not kicking their asses out on the street.

Re:What a surprise...

[inKubus]

It amazes me that people aren't yelling and screaming about this and marching in front of the White House.

I'll be right behind you. Go, march, at LEAST yell and scream. Donate to the EFF. CALL your representatives, city, state, and federal. If you already have, choose one and do it again. Once is not always enough.

Re:What a surprise...

[hacker]

"It amazes me that people aren't yelling and screaming about this and marching in front of the White House. People in this country have become too complacent and they're going to lose the freedoms that so many people have died to protect over the years. And when it comes to that, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves."

More than 11 million people protested in cities throughout the world to oppose an invasion of Iraq. Bush dismissed the protests, saying that he doesn't "decide policy based upon a focus group."

I don't think yelling and screaming will do much now, other than get yourself fast-tracked to the front of "Some List" that you probably don't want to be on at all.

Re:What a surprise...

[Cyno]

Could you imagine the look on their face if 30 million frustrated Americans marched up to D.C. with their guns in hand, demanding their rights, etc..

That's my American dream..

It'll never happen..

Nixon was an amateur

[ENOENT]

I mean, he only spied on ONE HOTEL ROOM.

How awfully nice to have the technology to spy on everyone in the country at once, and sufficiently rabid supporters to shout down anyone who questions the practice.

You're seeing the oversight in action

[jet_silver]

Can you not understand that well-paid, highly-cleared NSA employees do not scuttle their careers without good reason? The people doing the leaking are being asked to do something really evil, and they are not happy about it.

They're also taking a good-sized risk of winding up in an unmarked jail cell, or grave.

They're good people, they are saying "this is out of control and the citizenry must not take it any more".

Re:You're seeing the oversight in action

[American AC in Paris]

Frankly, I do not equate "individual civil servants willing to risk career, public castigation and prison time to do what is right" with "oversight". True oversight can only be performed by peers, not subordinates.

I agree completely, though, that when civil servants take this kind of a risk, something is decidedly rotten...and whoever is doing this leaking is going to go through absolute hell should they ever be found out.

Re:You're seeing the oversight in action

[MemoryAid]

Presumably, those highly-paid NSA personnel are also well-trained, at least enough to use disposable pre-paid cell phones that they purchased with cash somewhere without security cameras.

Seriously, many government phones have stickers on them that say "this line subject to monitoring," or similar. Also, we have a rich culture of spy thriller movies where the protagonists go through extraordinary lenghts not to have their phone calls traced or monitored. Anyone contemplating leaking information to the press should be well-prepared to render these phone records useless in tracking them down.

Re:You're seeing the oversight in action

[cold fjord]

I agree completely, though, that when civil servants take this kind of a risk, something is decidedly rotten.

That is by no means certain.

It could simply mean that they are committed to their own cause, which could be anything from A-F below:

A. Truth, Justice, and the American Way
B. I don't like what's going on, and leaking is easier than filing a complaint through proper channels
C. Embarrassing Bush will help Hillary win, and I probably won't get caught
D. Bring down Bush, no matter the cost.
E. Bring down America, no matter the cost.
F. Other

There is some very interesting information about Mary McCarthy, let go for leaking at NSA. I'm holding out for B, C, or D. Probably a mix.
A map of associations
Some defenders
Is there a bigger pattern?

Re:Nothing to see Here.... move along

[Crazy Man on Fire]

Leaking classified information is a crime.

It sure is. Do you think the reporters involved have top-secret clearance and are the ones who leaked the information? The information was leaked to the reportes, not by the reporters. If somebody on the inside broke the law, they should be investigated, tried, and punnished if found guilty. The first person in line should be GW. Not only does he leak when it is convenient, but he's broke most of the other laws of our country.

Re:Great!

[Fo0eY]

Posts like this are so mind boggling, it's hard to tell if it's just sarcasm/trolling, but my gut tells me you're actually serious.

Calling them traitors and claiming they are putting troops at danger is flat out intentional ignorance. Mainly, because none of this has anything to do with our troops in Iraq. So, while it makes a great sound bite to the folks too lazy to take a moment to use their own brains to come to a conclusion, it simply makes you look like an idiot to the rest of us who bother to figure things out for ourselves.

Your "traitors" are truly hero's who are literally putting their lives on the line for the real greater good of the country, exposing massive government corruption and widespread illegal activies of those in charge.

The true traitors are those folks in power supressing the truth about their own illegal activities.

Re:Wrong again.

[TheNoxx]

Sorry, but when neither is doing their job and people are being tortured and possibly killed without fair trial, it's time to start leaking to the press. That's the bottom line, and you don't get to hide behind "classified information" when you do something that unethical. Period.

look at both ends of that phoneline, bicches!

[Thud457]

Selective enforcement of the law is one of the hallmarks of corruption.

Re:look at both ends of that phoneline, bicches!

[raehl]

Selective enforcement of the law is one of the hallmarks of corruption.

There's a greeting card for that?

What's it say? "We know who is wishing you a Happy Birthday!" ??

Re:Haha..

[tyler_larson]

name one story broken by any media organization that precipitated a terrorist attack.

While I don't think anything you're suggesting has ever happened, we did find out from Al Qaeda records that they had never seriously considered using chemical & biological weapons in terrorist strikes until the American press detailed how easy they are to obtain and how devestating the effect would be.

Now, that wasn't classified information; but it does show, at least, that when the American media publishes information useful to terrorists, it doesn't go unnoticied.

Look out!

[thewiz]

Remember that slippery slope people have been talking about?

Well, we're on it and we're accelerating!

Posted to the site's blogger's comment area

[bsandersen]

Time for the Fourth Estate to pick up the challenge. Its passivity and timidity post 9/11 and the run-up to the war in Iraq fed this kind of arrogance. If we want to ensure Orwell's tale is only cautionary and not prescient, the press will need to act quickly and deliberately, challenging these bullies instead of simply being their mouthpieces. Quit worrying about ratings; start worrying about credibility and the truth.

Here's the al-queda connection?

[ugmoe]

>> I thought the u.s. government was only supposed to be looking at calls

>> to/from al-queda persons. At least that is what they keep repeating in

>> defending their nsa spying on u.s. citizens fiasco. I guess it's just

>> another lie.

1) This article is about the call records (number, duration) - not the contents of the calls was the case in the NSA monitoring calls between U.S. citizens and Al Queda members (where one party was outside of the U.S).

2) Then ABC revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan, it certainly does touch on Al Queda.

The Afgnanistan/Pakistan border area is reportedly a site of Al Queda activity. Pakistan does aid the U.S. in this area, but also has an internal situation that makes it difficult for them when Pakistan's government is revealed as aiding the U.S. in this area. So, revealing information about such aid makes it more difficult to secure future aid because the Pakistan leaders will be worried that the U.S. will be unable to keep their assistance secret.

So, if ABC news used leakers inside the CIA as the source of their story on the predator missiles inside of Pakistan they are directly interfering with the Al Queda situation.

The friendly article touches (very lightly) on this: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federa l_source_.html

People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.

Re:Here's the al-queda connection?

[timeOday]

1) This article is about the call records (number, duration) - not the contents of the calls

So, how does that make it not spying? Do we get to see the call logs of the President and Congress from their private phones? Or even their taxpayer supported calls on government time? Dick Cheney won't even tell us with whom he consults to form our national energy policy. So tell me again, how the identities of contacts are not sensitive information?

Read the ABC blog comments

[greg_barton]

It amazes me how many of the comments on the ABC News blog say, "the government should put leakers away for life!" and "treasonous journalists should be shot!"

Don't they realize that those are the attitudes that allowed Hitler and Stalin to operate? (And don't give me any lip about Goodwin's Law. This is serious.) I'm absolutely floored by folks who would like nothing better than to live in a police state coocoon when it's "their people in charge," but then scream bloody murder if "the wrong people" hold power. They just can't see that this attitude makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. Give the government an inch and they will take a mile, always. There is ALWAYS someone out there who wants more power, and it is our duty to ensure they cannot take it, whether we agree with them ideologically or not.

Re:Read the ABC blog comments

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Don't they realize that those are the attitudes that allowed Hitler and Stalin to operate?

Of course they do. An integral part of authoritarian regiemes is their willingness to share a portion of their absolute power with anyone willing to following their ideals and serve up their neighbours on a plate. Sycophants profit enourmously under dictatorships, and their unscrupulous devotion is just what tyrannical regiemes need to stay in power.

For a fresher look at this, read "Wild Swans" by Jung Chang for a good example of just how much the most twisted and unscrupulous of people profit when repression is required. Jung's father, a regional commander of extremely high principles and integrity, is almost beaten to death and hounded during the cultural revolution. Meanwhile, various people who you wouldn't trust as far as you could throw, continue to rise up the ranks and reel in the dough. Most notably a husband, wife pair known as the Tings, though they did eventually get ousted when they went altogether too far.

Basically, in a dictatorship, the most toxic and evil elements of society finally rise to the top and take their pleasure in stamping on the necks of all those under them. This is why dicatorships succeed. Not because of enigmatic leaders, weighty ideaologies or rhetoric; but because there are all too many willing to lick the tyrants boot so that the rest of us in turn might lick theirs.

Actually, the phone logs on civilians

[WillAffleckUW]

are also being used to correlate with databases on your credit purchases, credit reports, banking records, passport applications (and travel), airline travel, and gas fuel records to try to find linkages, all without your permission.

Trust the computer. The computer is your friend, citizen.

Stop using soldiers to hide bad policy

[NorseWarrior]

I get so tired of people running out the old saw about putting people's lives in danger...I'm one of those people...and I signed on to protect and defend the constitution. You either have to be a right-wing nutcase or have your head in the sand not to realize that the current administration is vastly expanding its role in relationship to the other branches.

Bottom line: if guaranteeing the 1st and 4th amendments (free press and unreasonable searches, for those of you who slept through Civics class) means we lose a few good guys, then that's the cost of doing business. Cold, but true.

And, for all the chickenhawks out there who use soldiers as shields for illegal acts-- to quote my favorite actor, "Pick up a rifle and stand a post."

You know who the enemy is?

[gaspar ilom]

It's about time we recognize who the phone-tappers, surveillance-freaks, torture-defenders, and black-box voting stooges really are:

They are a threat to Americans, our way of life, and our democracy.

They are a national security threat.

So are their defenders.

Unintentional Comedy 101

[DrSbaitso]

Brian Ross, Chief Investigative Correspondent for ABC news says a confidential source informed him that reporter's phone records are being used by the administration to track down leaks.

Man. I hope they didn't talk over the phone, or that confidential source is getting his door kicked in tonight :)

Re:Apples and Oranges

[orthogonal]

Watergate had nothing to do with classified information/national security

You remember the Pentagon Papers?

Daniel Ellsberg, a former Marine and a researcher for the RAND corporation surreptitiously copied "the Pentagon Papers", a multi-volume history of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Hoping to inform the American public of U.S. mistakes in Vietnam, Ellsberg then released the papers to the New York Times.

President Nixon attempted, on national security grounds, to halt their publication. When the Supreme Court declined to uphold the suppression of the papers, Nixon ordered G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt to break in to Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, hoping to find information with which to publicly smear Ellsberg.

That break-in, and the others that followed at the Watergate Building, became known as the Watergate conspiracy.

It also destroyed the government's case against Ellsberg: because of the break-in and an allegation that Nixon had ordered the CIA to "totally incapacitate" (e.g., kill) Ellsberg, the government's case against Ellsberg for conspiracy and espionage was dropped.

The media are government hackers

[VonGuard]

It is difficult enough for the media to keep itself from chewing on its cheeks at the moment. A constant inundation of information is possible these days, and as a result, many television news channels find themselves reporting for hours on meaningless stories, navel-gazing media-on-media coverage, and the latest celebrity items. The quality and necessary work is still being done by reputable mainstream and blogging outlets, but these almost universally require subterfuge, lying, and secrecy to be successful.

The media, when it's good, is underhanded. The media are the original hackers. Woodward and Bernstein hacked Nixon through a backdoor. This backdoor just happened to smoke and hang out in parking structures.

Stories come out much better when the subjects don't initially know they are being observed and written about. It's that hidden observation that lies at the heart of any good story, and it's where those dangerous questions that the media must ask come from. Nixon had no idea that his crimes had been discovered until the Washington Post printed the W&B piece.

A good writer digs through stinking shit-piles to pull out juicy bits of information just as a hacker dumpster-dives to find passwords and old hardware.

But being hidden will be quite hard if the government skirts privacy laws to spy on journalists. It's perfectly, 100% reasonable for the government to check its own records to look for leaks. If these ABC journalists' numbers show up as being called from internal NSA phone lines, then the NSA are perfectly able to track down the leakers internally.

But once they cross the line out into the real world by checking these journalists' personal phone records, a giant leap is made across the gray area that exists between legal and illegal, ethical and unethical, freedom and tyranny.

Speaking as a journalist, I must say that this is probably the single most outrageous thing I've head of this administration doing. Freedom of the press is one of our most dear and treasured rights, and attempts made to quash this freedom undermine not only the media as a whole, but the American people at large.

So, I say unto you, the media and bloggers and pundits and speakers and writers and photographers, stand up for the media's rights. The government is already afraid of the media. It's not afraid of the people as a whole. It's not afraid of a revolution: it has all the guns. But it is certainly afraid of bad publicity.

Fight this injustice, if true, and attack it's creators. They deserve the harshest of punishments for these deeds.

Suprise Hat

[Anonymous Coward]

I, as an IT nerd, am applying to business school for an MBA because, frankly, modern IT bores me. We're on the cusp of machines engineering machines (10 years), making diversification an essential pursuit. When I got into IT, it was like the Wild West and today central administration has taken much of the fun out of the field.

As I started studying economics, I came across a startling paradigm: "if it can exist, then it must." I had heard "if it can exist, it will"; the difference is the probable to the imperative. I'd never considered the imperative of entity existence yet the examples are limitless. If something can exist, then it does and it packaged and sold and someone makes money off it. Witness Japanese 7-11s selling air and the giant bottled water industry. That's all marketing. Do you really believe a two minute shot of pure oxygen does you any long term good? Is the solution for water-borne pollution to consume water in hydrocarbon bottles versus more stringent environmental regulations? It's fucking madness.

Back to IT. Look around you, people, you're nerds and you're smart. The first thing any IT person worth their salt will do is build a database of problems and start tracking needs, for you need to build a history in order to predict how much money you will need next year; it's about tracking resources.

Those resources can be anything, toner, ink cartridges, gigabit fiber ethernet transceivers, SCSI cables, Exchange licenses, web queries. Let's not fuck with the definition of resources.

Instead let's fuck with the concept that we have micro-databases and macro-databases. Micro-databases track the number of bits flowing over port 24 of router XYZ. Macro-databases aggregate all of your micro-databases into "our backbone is 39% utilized and we should plan for capital investment in 2007 of $xx based on 12% traffic growth per year."

Now, replace toner cartridge with New York Times reporter and bandwidth capacity with voter sentiment.

You think 1984 is scary? Open your mind and start changing up the nouns in your daily work. Imagine applying web metrics to health care premiums. Compare intellectual dissent to bugs in program code. We can dance with whatever metaphor you like but while you pussy sissy's debate monolithic kernels and the cost of the PlayStation 3, someone is making sure to build a database that will prohibit your children from having any social mobility and terminate your gene line in a coal mine somewhere.

As I write, I get more vitriolic because the IT and software people I know are among the smartest, most well-educated and most selfish people I know. You think Linux is a project borne of love? Naw look at the psychology behind it all. You have a bunch of pasty nerds who were never cool and always felt excluded by the mainstream social community at different levels of compulsory education and escaped their angst by climbing into a computer screen and fabricating a virtual world.

Unfortunately, they didn't watch Real Genius closely enough for the software code that eventually made them cool is now going to enslave them because they care more about putting an MP3 player in their toilet that their fucking freedom.

Surprise hat. Welcome to hive brain nerd. I'm a marketer with degrees in sociology and psychology. I'll keep telling you linux will get you pussy and you'll keep trading your civil liberties for new Playstations.

nuckcl@yahoo.com

Re:Suprise Hat

[Anonymous Coward]

putting an MP3 player in their toilet

Sweet, something to do this weekend!

Re:Suprise Hat

[Lord Ender]

Um... what's your point? Seriously. What I got out of that is "you guys are smart" (mod up), bottled water is dumb (mod up), and "quit building and designing new things and... um... realize that data mining is probably being done to snoop on people."

Huh? So I should stop designing new things and... do what exactly? You failed to mention that part.

Re:Suprise Hat

[evought]

I, as an IT nerd, helped Sprint PCS design the database that collects the data which the NSA uses. With the terrabytes of CDRs coming off of their switches every day, it was a hell of a challenge.

The problem with your statement is that this database, like so many others, was developed for a good reason: streamlined, more accurate billing, and fraud detection. The problem, just like with guns, writable DVDs, and UWB scanners is most often in the way the technology is used, not in what it is. How do you separate the legitimate need from the abusive one? How do you separate knowledge of nucleonics that tells us how our Sun works from that which lets us construct bombs?

This is what law is for. This is also why government oversite exists. Both have failed.

Bullshit. Illegal orders are not protected.

[khasim]

Divulging classified information is not "whistleblowing", no matter how you look at it.

Bullshit. "Classified" has NOTHING to do with it.

If I give someone an order to rape some little girl and then I get that order classified they would be wrong to follow the order OR to obey the classification.

There are policies in place to report corruption or illegal activities in regards to classifired material.

Yes there are.

So? When the corruption goes to the top then there is nothing wrong with going to the public.

Honestly, people who who security clearance know better than this.

People who have security clearances know that if they do go public, they will face the consequences.

Going public is always an option.

It is the final option.

Whether or not a program is illegal or unconstittutional, leakers have to expect to take a hit.

No one is saying that they shouldn't expect that.

What you're saying is that they should NEVER go public.

I'm saying that going public with an illegal order is the LAST resort and does NOT violate any oath.

They are violating their oaths of secrecy.

Again, you are wrong.

When they go public with information about an ILLEGAL operation / order, they have broken no oaths.

Re:Bullshit. Illegal orders are not protected.

[Ohreally_factor]

You're still not getting the underlying concept.

When the secret activity is illegal activity, then the oath no longer holds legal force. In fact, not breaking an oath might be seen as illegal, as it is engaging in a cover up of an illegal act. If there had been proper judicial and congressional oversight of the activity, we could then have some confidence that the activity was not illegal. Since the Bush Administration has intentionally hid these activities from oversight, it's not unreasonable to doubt their legality.

What's scary are the comments left on the ABC blog

[inertialmatrix]

The part I find incredibly frightening is that it seems so many citizens of this country do see a problem with this. Sure, they are coming for the communists first, but then what? I am afraid of the hysterical masses that are willing to hand over MY rights to the government. I grew up thinking that the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect me and others like me from the wacko majority?

You know, we spend a lot of time teaching our children about the men that founded this country, however flawed personally they were, and the ideals they believed in. Maybe it's time we actually stood by those words.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin


Quotes from ABC News Blog by members of the public:
"Good! I hope they do find out who is leaking national security info to the press. I'm tired of the press helping our enemies. Maybe you guys should start trying to "FOR the USA" instead of "AGAINST the USA" ALL THE TIME. I hope the FBI nails lots of idiots who are out to destroy the intelligence agencies and cost us more soldiers and spys!"

"'Bout time you guys are roped in."

"Excellent the Media needs looking after, Traitors most of them......."

"good, you seditionist creeps deserve what you get. who knows how many serviceman have died because of your "right to know""

"I hope the information they gain allows them to catch the scum that leak information, and helps them arrest the communist scum who publish it."

"Well maybe ABC news better stop leaking classified information. This only helps our enemies and right now I believe ABC news is an enemy of the US."

"You didn't inconvenience someone, you broke the law. It's called a criminal investigation!!!!"

"I believe that it is a great idea to maintain telephone surveilance over news organizations who disclose classified and sensitive secret information. Lets nail the government employees who knowingly break their oath to not divulge classified information."

"GOOD! I hope they find out who is reporting all of these leaks. And I hope you are tried and perhaps spend some time in jail for it. KEEP CALLING and I hope they track your every word!"

Does The Constitution Still Matter?

[viewtouch]

The Constitution specifically states that there can be no laws which abridge (i.e., curtail) the freedom of the press. In plain English that means that The Constitution specifially withholds from the government any authority to even investigate the activities of the people when they are about the business of publishing information.

There are no exceptions to this - not even 'national security'.

Of course if The Constitution is considered merely to be a 'Goddamned Piece of Paper', as Bush has described it, and if the people who are involved in violating The Constitution don't care about adhering to it, then all bets are off, which is pretty much where we in the US are at these days.

What could possibly be wrong with surveillance?

[Malakusen]

Well, here's something. Of course, nobody would ever misuse a government agency for political goals.

AC/Paris, a few corrections and some info for you

[EQ]

"nebulous bad things"?

Umm, there are some craters in NYC and PA and a lot of relatives of dead people that differ with you on your opinion of "nebulous". One of them is a firefighter cousin of mine.

There is a substantive threat out there, and all the naysaying you put forth doesnt change it. Please start dealing with reality, not fantasy.

Whats important is that we do recoginize that there is a threat and as a nation PUBLICLY decide what we are going to do about it. Pretending its not there and we can go back to 1996 isn't going to work (thats your mistkae). Neither is hiding all our efforts under blanket secrecy to prevent such a thing from happening (thats Bush's mistake).

As for this article, please go read it - and other related articles for more detail. The FBI is investigating a crime - the unlawful disclosure of classified information to those not authorized to recieve it USC 18 700-something (you can look it up - its on the books online someplace). Its also a crime to recieve such information and not notify the proper authority, so the reporters may be culpable as well (but may be exempt under Freedom of the Press - thats for the court to decide).

As a result the FBI have gotten court orders to get the call detail records of those suspected of being complicit in this crime. From my time in telecom, I can tell you that this is a routine occurance, and most telcos even have an office that deals with these things, one that is in weekly contact with the local FBI field offices. The surprising thing is that they dont even need a warrant - a simple "Section 2701" court order suffices - and the law even orders that the judge "Shall Issue" such an order when it comes to these kinds of records (in other words the judge doesn't have much choice if the FBI says the need it for investigation into a possible criminal offense - they show up, tell them what they want and walk out with a court order for the telco). There is very little legal protection for this sort of record when a crime is being investigated.

Just though a few facts might counter the hysteria. The sky isnt falling - at least in this instance - the laws are working as they are written to do. And those of you who cite "Secret Prison Camps" - go back and re-research that. They apparently never existed and were a story planted in order to catch leakers (which is what this may be all about).

[And mods, please remember an opposing point of view is not flamebait nor is it a troll. Funny that I oppose both sides, so Im probably going to get modded into oblivion by both sides]

The Press should be the ally of the People.

[khasim]

The Press should be the ally of the People.

When the Government considers the Press to be the Enemy, that means that the Government considers an ally of the People to be the Enemy.

That's one step away from considering the People to be the Enemy of the Government.

The only Al Qaida Affiliates

[Philip K Dickhead]

In the US are in the CIA.

I'll probably get more Troll mods for this one. It's not.

http://www.orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/ 002721.html

http://invisionfree.com/forums/4th_Space_Cafe/inde x.php?showtopic=285&view=getnewpost

Re:Nothing to see Here.... move along

[tinkerghost]

You didn't hear the explination? As president, Bush CANNOT LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION because as the chief executive, he has the authority to DECLASIFY anything he wants. So if he said go ahead & blow a CIA cover, that cover becomes declassified by default - nothing illegal here.

Why you U.S. Citizens are not fighting back ?

[unity100]

Seriously i mean ? All i hear that loose organisations with small representative base among population trying to do something.

Arent these YOUR rights ? Why arent you fighting back ? Isnt being ripped off your rights by your government similar to being ripped off your rights by a foreign power, like in 1774 ?

Re:Why you U.S. Citizens are not fighting back ?

[eander315]

Some of us are. I think a huge percentage of the US public is just getting used to the idea that Bush isn't great, his policies are questionable at best, and that the rest of our government is rapidly becoming as bad as the ones they're trying to replace. Those people will probably take awhile to actually get off the fence and raise their voice.

That's in the Blue States. Here in the heart of Bushland (Houston, TX), you can get your teeth knocked out for criticising our President too loudly. It's difficult to get your point across to people who get all of their information from FOX News, and write you off as nuts the moment they realize what you're saying.

There are people trying to do something about this mess. Tom Delay has been effectively removed from power, Cindy Sheehan parked herself on Bush's doorstep for weeks, and I have a feeling the Hispanic population isn't very pleased with our current government right now, and will probably turn out to vote in massive numbers, with or without formal organization.

Even in the middle of a Red State, Americans are slowly changing their minds. I can't imagine what it looks like outside the US looking in, but I assure you we're not all sitting idly by watching our rights slip away.

Shocking recollections in spite of Godwin's Law

[D4C5CE]

I realize that by Godwin's Law I've lost this argument already, but if Goering's comments from 60 years ago don't make your spine tingle, what does?

Then at least the arguments of someone even higher up in that particular hierarchy that's fortunately history probably will...give everyone the creeps:
Shirer (1959) has this translation:

If anyone reproaches me and asks why I did not resort to the regular courts of justice, then all I can say is this: In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the supreme judge (oberster Gerichtsherr) of the German people.

Re:Americans scared?

[The Queen]

I think it was 'round about the time when they started making kids wear helmets to play in the park. http://holophrastic.com/javascopes/october_02.php

Safety is out of hand; if we let stupid people continue to live and breed then we get the future we deserve.

oversight

[rodentia]

Given what little we've been able to glean about these programs (which increasingly appear part of a broad, focused initiative to enable domestic information gathering without *wiretapping*) and that thousands of false leads seem decidedly counter-productive, their primary utility appears to be the extortion of political opponents and intimidation of the press.

And no, there is no oversight. That is the statutory role of the FISA court, whose creation was in direct response to the preceived need for warrantless surveillance. This court was avoided precisely because the true scope of this fishing expedition is in direct violation of the 4th Amendment, as the court would have informed Cheney, Hayden, Gonzalez, et. al. directly and in no uncertain terms.

Dubya makes Tricky Dick look like a patsy. These actions have threatened the foundation of the Republic and as they have sown, so shall they reap. Far from strengthening authority, they are challenging American's respect for it; this will not be without consequences for the health of our political system. Let's not forget that the *malaise* of the Carter years was largely a consequence of the betrayal of America's trust in civil institutions by a sitting President.

Re:SF-312 Nondisclosure Agreement

[nagora]

Clearly, any law which exists to protect law-breakers has an internal contradiction. It is up to the individual as to which side of that contradiction to stand on: to obey their SF-312 and thereby allow someone else to act unlawfully, or to break the law and thereby prevent the other person(s) from breaking the law.

Keeping classified information secret when it reveals an abuse of the law is the coward's way out of the dilemma. Even if the actions revealed are not illegal, but simply immoral, the dilema does not go away. Unless you are a spineless weakling who kowtows to the government in the way that the original American rebels refused to do theirs. If you are going to roll over and let (largely unelected) people in the administration act without fear of observation or accountability, you might as well still be living under King George III.

It's high time the people who have taken it upon themselves to sabotage this administration be brought to justice.

Any member of the administration who has done nothing wrong has nothing to fear. Right?

TWW

Who elected the reporters?

[geoffrobinson]

This post makes a good point. Let me add to it.

Who elected the reporters and gave them this authority? No one? Are they a law unto themselves?

If you do this, looking at your phone calls is mild.

Re:SF-312 Nondisclosure Agreement

[greg_barton]

It's high time the people who have taken it upon themselves to sabotage this administration be brought to justice.

I agree with part of your statement: It's high time this administration be brought to justice.

Again, BULLSHIT!

[khasim]

I am saying that what they did was illegal, and violated their oaths.

BULLSHIT!

There is nothing "illegal" about dis-obeying an illegal order. FUCK!!! Didn't we go through that sufficiently back at the Nurnberg Trials?

There is nothing "illegal" about telling someone that you were given an illegal order.

If the order / operation is ILLEGAL then refusing it or revealing it cannot be illegal.

If they leak this information, they should face the consequences.

Get a fucking clue you ass-sucking moron!

Look up the "Witness Protection Program". We have a long history of protecting people who broke illegal oaths to reveal the facts and who didn't want to "face the consequences" that criminals would like to bring down upon them.

Why do you want them to suffer just because the CRIMINALS are part of the GOVERNMENT?

Oh, it's because you don't want them to reveal the lies in the first place, isn't it?

Re:AC/Paris, a few corrections and some info for y

[Anonymous Coward]

Please start dealing with reality, not fantasy.

You first.

Here's a fantasy: There was a substantive threat to the United States in Iraq.

Here's another: There was anybody in Iraq that had anything to do with your craters, either directly or indirectly.

Here's yet another: Iraq's WMD program was far enough advanced to represent a clear and present danger to the United States, either from Iraq itself or from nuclear-weapon-wielding terrorists.

Here's a new one: Iran's nuclear ambitions represent enough of a substantive threat to the United States to necessitate military action.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

Quick Question

[Arandir]

Quick question time. I really do want a rational answer to this one, and not some snarky shit just because I don't happen to share your worldview:

Why is so much angst being spent over this database that the NSA is collecting, but no one says anything at all about the database that the IRS is collecting? Why are phone records a privacy issue but financial records are not? When I filed my taxes last month I had to reveal the following information: my occupation, my employer, my salary, my age, the social security numbers of my children, whether my wife or I are blind, what charities I give to, what funds I invest in, how big my mortgate is, what my medical expenses were, etc. If someone rummaged through my garbage and found my phone bill, it would be no big deal. If someone found my tax returns, however, I could be the victim of some serious identity theft.

What's the difference?

Re:Quick Question

[igaborf]

The differences are:

1) The IRS is collecting information openly, with the acquiescence, albeit grudging, of the American people.

2) The IRS' use of the collected information is constrained by law, and they follow those rules.

3) The IRS' activity is monitored by Congress, which can and does call IRS officials to account for the actions of the agency.

Get it now?

Re:Quick Question

[buss_error]

You file your IRS information because that's the law.

You don't file who you called, for how long, and how often, because that is not the law.

Today it is legal to call the psychic hotline. However, many religions hold that to be traffic with Saten. This administration has aligned itself with several right wing extreme religions. How would you like it if that call got into the hands of the local Bible Thumpers? They'd be on your doorstep, telling your children how evil you are, trying to arrest you, and watching you like a cat at a mousehole.

No, the problem isn't only that they look at the data. The problem is they retain it. Those records could be used years from now against you in ways we can't imagine now. Just look how RICO laws are now used. When enacted, they were to be used against mobsters. Now they are used for common fraud and other things they were not originally designed to be used against.

Were I planning to do things I'd rather not have Law Enforcement interested in, I'd use no contract, cash payment cell phones on both ends. And if I didn't want to do that, I'd use a one time pad encryption system to email. Sling a 1gb USB drive with the one time pad, and I've got hundreds if not thousands of email exchanges.

Lastly, do you ever remember hearing the phrase "The Rule of LAW!"? That's what George Bush and his cohorts promised. In no way what they are doing is within the rule of law. Now, think about this: would you have stood for this kind of thing going on under William Jefferson Clinton? What if the President were Hillery Clinton?

The problem, my dear friend, is not that I don't trust George W Bush (and I don't), but that I do not trust my Government, no matter who heads it, and for the same reason why I do not want to see a national ID card. Frankly, it's no legitimate business of our government where I go, who I see, and what I think. They answer to ME, not the other way around.

Re:AC/Paris, a few corrections and some info for y

[killjoe]

More firefighters died from traffic accidents, smoking, and drinking EVERY WEEK then 9/11. If you love and honor firefighters and want to avenge their deaths I suggest you declare a jihad against tobacco companies, beer manufacturers and automobile makers.

I am sick of people using the firefighters to make political points. Oddly enough those same people will damn the firefighters when talking about unions. Shows how much of a weasel they are.

Re:REPUBLICANS ARE TRAITORS. PERIOD.

[abefij]

Do the math:

400,000+ in mass graves / 20 years = 20,000 lives lost per year under Saddam Hussien.

36,000 (IraqBodyCount) / 3 years = 12,000 lives lost per year since the war started.

So Bush and Blair are saving 8,000 lives per year. I would think any humanitarian would be happy that more people are living longer lives.

I suppose that status quo was Ok with you then?

The status quo was not peace. 20,000 lives lost per year was not peace.

It's only because of men like Bush and Blair that there is any hope for peace in the future... and there is hope where there wasn't any before.

Re:Oh, but ...

[Eli Gottlieb]

Even better, some say Bush may simply carry fowards into a "permanent second term".

Re:What they are doing doesn't require the NSA

[Lagged2Death]

Fact is, the NSA program still is for US to offshore calls.

The fact is that when Gonzales told us that the NSA only listens to international calls he didn't take an oath, and that he later rescinded or re-qualified much of his testimony, in particular making the point that although one particlar intelligence program involved listening to international calls, a certain gigantic multi-billion dollar signals-intelligence agency might actually be running more than one signals-gathering program. (Like, whoa, seriously?)

To attach the name "fact" to information obtained under such circumstances is, I think, very, very optimistic, in a sense.

The fact is that Bush has told us bald-faced lies about domestic spying activities, and at this point it would require a hearty steaming ladle-full of naivete to imagine that the general public now knows the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The fact is that the Bush administration has aptly demonstrated that it simply cannot be trusted, and the sorry fact is that we can be certain of precious little beyond that.

The fact is, recognizing these facts does not constitute "fanaticism." I believe there's a saying down in Texas: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

Re:Watergate

[fishbowl]

"Am I the only one who remembers Watergate? When Nixon wiretapped it was illegal, the law HAS NOT CHANGED."

I remember Watergate. And I clearly remember that the public perception of the hotel breakin was not widely understood to be significant until it was shown that it was a catalyst for a high-level coverup. Today, people don't seem to understand the significance of the Valerie Plame affair, and I suspect they will not, until investigating the subsequent coverup becomes a congressional priority.

As for the phone tapping, it's a crime. It is still a crime even if the President of the United States declares it not to be. So who tapped phones, and for what purpose? We cannot take this case straight from the evidence on the table to an impeachment hearing, as it sits.

Also, I don't understand why Qwest is getting a free pass on this. Yes, they refused to participate in a government conspiracy to deprive people of their constitutional right to not have evidence gathered against them without a warrant and suspicion of a specific crime. But while they refused to participate, they still helped cover it up.

Remember Moussaoui? His crime was knowing about the conspiracy and failing to report it.

As far as I'm concerned, the executives at Qwest should face the exact same punishment, because they have committed precisely the same crime.

If This Was Pres. Hilary....

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Imagine the sound and fury from Fox and the neocons if this was being done by President Hilary Clinton. They'd be screaming for impeachment, followed by hanging, drawing, and quartering.

Treason?

[DigiShaman]

Durring a time of war, releasing classified information is an act of treason last I heard. So ya, it's serious shit that DOES rank up there with terrorism.

Hey, don't look at me, I didn't write the rules.

Re:Treason?

[SmokedS]

1. Classify operation X.
2. Have operatives in operation X perform illegal acts.
3. Block any investigation with the operation being classified as the excuse.
4. Cheer and laugh at the crowd as another piece of the American constitution and the American soul turns to ashes.

Re:It happened before

[Maserati]

"All of this has happened before, all of this will happen again."

Sorry.

Just last week I was speaking with an Irish friend and trying to reassure him about the path my country is likely to take. And how long it will be before we wake up and turn the hell around. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, Roosevelt detained Japanse immigrant families, etc. We do this kind of stuff during wartime, and apologise and pay reparations later,

This still looks bad though.

Re:AC/Paris, a few corrections and some info for y

[complete loony]

It's called Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Where at least one Australian citizen has been held, by the US, without trial for 4 years. If he's guilty of something, hold a fair trial and send him to prison. If you can't convict him of anything, then let him go. It's as simple as that.

Re:Go after lib when hungry, but conserv for sport

[plalonde2]

And that's because the so-called "liberal" press is all owned by wealthy conservatives? go figure. and stuff yourself and your idea of a "liberal" press.

Re:Yeah!

[finkployd]

As for the definition of covert status, look it up yourself. Oh, wait you already did that, but in true MMoore fashion, you ignore and hope nobody will bother to find out for themselves.

Oh no you do not. Take it back, that is a massive (pun intended) insult :P

Let's play this game. She was not a covert agent, there was nothing wrong with "outing" her (in fact as non covert, she can't be outed). We both can accept that so far right?

So why did the CIA throw a hissy fit when her non-covert identity was revealed? Why was Bush so upset that he (1) said that nobody in his admin leaked her non-covert identity, (2) if anyone did they would be fired and (3) appoint a special prosecutor to find the source of the leak. For that matter why was a reporter held in jail over the leak of a non-covert agent?

Can someone please explain why Bush would waste so much time, effort, and money if there was no problem with revealing her identity?

Are we just supposed to pretend he didn't say this?

"Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing." --10/7/03

Or this?

"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." --7/18/05

Both of these are reponses to direction questions regarding Plame, not NSA wiretapping, not our CIA torture chambers, not any of the other things that they are pissed were revealed - Plame. So why say these things instead of just coming out and saying "It is a non-issue, she is not covert, and I can unclassify anything I damn well please. Next question". While that answer would have probably pissed off some, I would have welcomed the rare honesty.

Look, I am not a Bush basher by trade, and I consider myself pretty conservative (in the Gingrich/Regan sense) but I am also not an idiot. I know the constitution and I can detect hair splitting, sorry excuses bullshit when I hear it. Everything lately coming out of this admin regarding NSA spying, warrantless games, and the Plame affair sounds a whole lot like total weaseling bullshit. The defenses for these actions are getting weak and pathetic to the point where I cannot imagine how anyone is delivering them with a straight face. It seems only those paralysed by fear that Osama is lurking in every shadow and blinded by the belief that the government can do no wrong are still buying it. The rallying cry is "we are at war, the president can do everything he wants. Anyone calling for oversight or accountability in governemnt wants our children to die".

It still amuses me that those who somehow believe that Islamic terrorists are only after us because they hate our freedom consider removing those freedoms the best protection.

Finkployd

Re:AC/Paris, a few corrections and some info for y

[EQ]

I beg to differ. I was in Baghdad and in Kabul and Uzbekistan over the past few years (post invasion for both), and there *are* people that want nothing more than our destruction and subjugation. They may be few in number, but they are quite fanatical, and well funded by our stupid addiction to oil. I've seen their literature, heard the captives talk, seend them blow their fellow citizens to bits along with themselves to further the cause of Jihad and the Caliphate.

Try reading up on Wahabbism and the Salafists and Tahwidists. They "declared war" onn us back inthe 1990's, when we didnt bother to pay attention to them. 9/11 was a result of doing what you want to do: nothing. Get out of your cublice farm or dorm room, and learn that not everythign fed to you by the media or blogs is true, and a good deal of it is simply trash designed to inflame rather than inform.

And stuff your false pity for the deaths in NY. "Statistically Insignificant" is for jackasses liek you. Suppose a terrorist were to sniper shoot you in the head. Thats "Statistically insignificant" but very important to you and anyoen that values life and freedom - so do you value life so little that you dont care even about your own, that you are completely unreasonable when viewing and assessing risks? These risks probability are low, but very consequential and high impact if allowed to occur. Aside form the economic dislocations, the security backlash, military actions, etc - there is the simple fact of the large life of human life. I am unwilling to throw those people under the bus as "statistically insignificant" like you are. Collectivists like you are disgusting to individualists.

Your false positioning belies your purpose and your willingness to blind yourself for a political cause. You and yours are just a different kind of scum from the ones on the other side of the political coin from you.

And you might want to inform yoruself if you can get those idealogical blinders off. Not everythign is the propaganda that you have manged to ingest and regurgitate on command. In that way, you and the left are no better than the Right and its Rush Limbots. You refuse to see all the facts in your rage against your enemy, George Bush. You're as stupidly blind as the Republicans were against Clinton.

The problem is the Republicans could be dealt with - if they were "wrong" on thier impeachment we had a "liar" as president - nothign new there,they all lie, I think its congential. However, now, if you and yours are wrong, thousands more innocents will die, and many more will suffer.

Consider the cost. Carefully and fully. And value the individual, however "statistically insignificant" they are.

Re:Go after lib when hungry, but conserv for sport

[AHumbleOpinion]

And that's because the so-called "liberal" press is all owned by wealthy conservatives? go figure. and stuff yourself and your idea of a "liberal" press.

When was the last time that the board of directors of Time Warner, General Electric, etc. were writing the on-air scripts and editing film clips and audio? The people who do those tasks overwhelmingly identify themselves are liberals and in all honesty when they are covering a topic a bias is evident. It's subtle sometimes, watch the coverage of a hot button issue, say gun control or abortion. They'll interview a lawyer/PR spokesperson from the pro-gun control or pro-choice side but not interview a lawyer/PR spokesperson for the other sides, rather they'll go find some fool wearing a bit too much camoflauge for a strip mall or some fire and brimstone spouting zealot. Now a liberal may not even notice something subtle like that, it confirms to their stereotyping and demonization of the "enemy". A conservative will probably notice because they're think "where did they find that idiot, he doesn't represent me or any of the people I know who agree with me". In short, when portrayed bias conforms to your bias, you don't see it. It doesn't matter if it's left leaning or right leaning.

Some serious overreaction.

[hirschma]

I'm sorry for the loss of your cousin.

At the same time, don't assume that I have no experience with this - I lived three blocks north of the WTC that day. I've had relatives die in the towers. I was evacuated. I'll probably suffer from some exotic respiratory illness in the future, thanks to the EPA's lies. I think that I can safely say that I've had my life touched by terrorism. I only mention it because you infer that somehow being a victim makes your arguement more relevant. It doesn't.

That being said: We live in a country where roughly 20,000 citizens are murdered, mostly by their fellow citizens, yearly. I'm sure that I can come up with many other salient figures, but let's stay with good old murder. So, 20k died in 2001, and every year since then. 100k dead because of the murderers.

Imagine if Bush had declared a War on Murder. We're going to do the following:

* Spend a trillion dollars, to rebuild lots and lots of stuff in major cities.
* Monitor the phones of all Americans. Without warrants.
* Have forced, unpaid overtime for all law-enforcement officials. Oh, and they cannot retire, either.
* Have private security forces, on the government payroll, also doing stuff. Except that they're unaccountable to anyone, so they do a lot of bad stuff.
* Put "known murderer associates" in prison, no trial, no representation.
* Torture said "known murderer associates" for information regarding the murderers.

This is a pretty direct analogy.

But, remember - we're going to end murder, right? We're going to Win the War on Murder! Mission Accomplished!

Yeah. Americans would never, ever allow this. It'd never happen. *You* probably wouldn't want it to happen.

Of course, the average American is much more likely to be murdered "normally" than as a result of terrorism. Hell, they're much more likely to be killed by their husband, wife, parent, friend, lover, neighbor - really, anyone BESIDES a "terrorist". So, what rights should we give up to stop these killers?

Please don't tell me about substantive threats. There are many threats to the safety and security of American citizens, but terrorism doesn't merit the supposed cure that this administration wants to foist on the people.

jh

Re:lives are at stake with leaks; oaths of service

[evought]

Indeed, my oath when I got my TS clearance specifically included "defending The Constitution". Even the oath itself recognizes that a higher cause trumps strict secrecy. That being said, I was never in contact with information that put me in that position. I do not envy people who are asked to decide between their oaths.

Re:What they are doing doesn't require the NSA

[SmokedS]

Fact is, the NSA program still is for US to offshore calls.

That's not what I heard

Anyway, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that the NSA was caught red handed and is trying it's hardest to find and punish the people that exposed their illegal activities.
So in short: The criminals are trying to track down the witness so they can silence/discredit him/her. Kudos to ABC for not being intimidated.
Three cheers for the anyone brave enough to blow the wistle on corruption and abuse of power.

moronic

[commodoresloat]

I can't believe I'm taking this bait but here we go. If Valerie was not covert, the CIA would never have asked for an investigation. If leaking her name was legal, the whole issue could have been settled with a simple phone call (not even a tapped one!) from Fitzgerald to the CIA. The CIA is the only entity in any position to tell us whether or not VPW was covert. Finally, Scooter is being charged with lying and obstructing justice, not with violating the IIPA.

These people defending Libby make me sick. It's one thing to minimize the nature of his crime, or to claim that the CIA wasn't doing a very good job of protecting VPW's cover, but it is quite another to act like Scooter is some kind of hero for this. Who knew that the Republican party would have a wing that is openly pro-treason.

Re:AC/Paris, a few corrections and some info for y

[American AC in Paris]

...as you mention me by name, I feel compelled to respond to a few things:

Umm, there are some craters in NYC and PA and a lot of relatives of dead people that differ with you on your opinion of "nebulous". One of them is a firefighter cousin of mine.

There is a substantive threat out there, and all the naysaying you put forth doesnt change it. Please start dealing with reality, not fantasy.

Whats important is that we do recoginize that there is a threat and as a nation PUBLICLY decide what we are going to do about it. Pretending its not there and we can go back to 1996 isn't going to work (thats your mistkae). Neither is hiding all our efforts under blanket secrecy to prevent such a thing from happening (thats Bush's mistake).

For starters, you're jumping to one hell of a conclusion by conflating my opposition to how our government is handling the terror threat with me somehow sticking my head in the sand and pretending that the whole wide world simply wuvs us and wouldn't hurt a hair on our heads. I don't think we should "go back" to ignoring terrorism. I also don't think that we're tackling the problem in the right fashion, either--and I get rather exercised by people who suggest that my failure to support the battle as it is currently being waged is, by extension, a failure to grasp the gravity of the situation.

I do take terrorism seriously, and frankly, I think the administration is making us far, far more enemies than allies in this regard. Nearly five years after 9/11, most of the world harbors dislike for our nation and our policies; startlingly large chunks of certain regions absolutely, vehemently abhor us, and actively wish to cause us harm. Tough talk about evil regimes and no negotiating with rogue nations looks good for the cameras, but it is simply unsustainable in the long term. Our military has been running at capacity with stop-loss orders for several years now, we're "meeting" reduced recruiting goals, and the crown jewel of our global offensive on terror is in an active civil war that we are pretty much powerless to stop--all we can do is supress it somewhat. On the international front, we've engaged in so much saber-rattling, "don't-fuck-with-us-we're-crazy"-style foreign relations that our allies are distancing themselves from us, and our enemies are starting to call our bluff. Our hands are pretty much tied when it comes to Iran, with our choices being largely restricted to "hope the EU 3 make a breakthrough" and "full war". We recently taught the Palestineans a valuable lesson about democracy in this brave new world: if you don't elect who we want you to elect, you'll pay dearly for it. North Korea is off the diplomatic radar again, since we're spending most of our diplomatic energy on keeping Iraq's civil war from erupting completely. Our president's staunchest ally is absolutely loathed by his populace and is on his way out. Our alliance with Pakistan will last only so long as the US-friendly military junta remains in power; a popular uprising would be all too happy to cut ties with America. Good 'ol "Pootie Poot" is finally showing his colors, which look something different from when he was chumming it with our president those years ago. Venezuela, should have been a fairly minor diplomatic thorn in our side, has turned into a full-scale pissing match between two men too proud to have anything short of their way. Even Afghanistan is still in limbo, with the Taliban making a limited resurgence and various warlords cum politicos jockeying for power.

How, exactly, is this the profile of a nation that is winning a struggle against international terrorism?

I care about national security. I care about combating terrorism. I also get a little ticked when people accuse me of living in a fantasy land simply because I think we're not going about things the right way. Since 9/11, I've lived in DC and Baltimore. I lived smack in the middle of the DC Sniper. If you think I spent those da

This is the most corrupt Presidency since Nixon...

[Money for Nothin']

(at least!)

Mod me down -1, Obvious...

Section 2701?

[TubeSteak]

I'm surprised no one has called you on this yet.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/u sc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_121.html

I read Section 2701 and all the Sections it references: 2703, 2704, 2518
For good measure, I read 2702.

None of those sections ever state that the FBI/Police can get any information without a warrant or subpoena signed by a judge.

Your statement that: "The surprising thing is that they dont even need a warrant - a simple "Section 2701" court order suffices - and the law even orders that the judge "Shall Issue" such an order when it comes to these kinds of records," is only partially correct. I say partially, because instead of a warrant, they can get a subpoena.

The law says nothing about 'the judge "Shall Issue"'

If you had read the law you referenced, you would have learned that the police/FBI must detail with specificity who/what/when/where/why in their application for a subpoena or warrant.

Possibly you meant Section 2709?
Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records

To get any information that way, "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" must certify that their request(s) "are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities"

And that section of the law requires that the FBI inform Committees in both the House and Senate on a semi-annual basis.

Re:AC/Paris, a few corrections and some info for y

[coaxial]

As a result the FBI have gotten court orders to get the call detail records of those suspected of being complicit in this crime. From my time in telecom, I can tell you that this is a routine occurance, and most telcos even have an office that deals with these things, one that is in weekly contact with the local FBI field offices. The surprising thing is that they dont even need a warrant - a simple "Section 2701" court order suffices - and the law even orders that the judge "Shall Issue" such an order when it comes to these kinds of records (in other words the judge doesn't have much choice if the FBI says the need it for investigation into a possible criminal offense - they show up, tell them what they want and walk out with a court order for the telco). There is very little legal protection for this sort of record when a crime is being investigated.

One word of about the legal defination of "shall." "Shall" doesn't always mean "will" or "must." It can also mean "may." As they say, "If you can't argue the facts, argue the law."

Now, on to the wiretaps.

Are the wiretaps being conducted by the FBI? The article doesn't say. Now they should be conducted by the FBI, since the FBI has sole jurisdiction within the United States, but as we've seen recently, the adminstration has little regard for that as seen with the NSA operating within the borders of the United States, which is explictly forbidden to do so. Was the required warrant issued? That's the question. If government did get a court order, then everything is cool. They showed probable cause to an independent judiciary. That's the way the system works, and how it should work. Unfortunately, there's real doubt these days that actually happened.

Currently there's a program, in violation of the 4th Amendment by the NSA. It's conducting surveillance on American cititzens without any judical oversight. Why is that? The FISA court was setup to issue secret warrants, and it only rejected only a handfull of requests in 30 years. Speed? The government could start wiretaps immediately and get a retroactive wiretap within 72 hours. That's plenty of time to fill out paper work.

The president has argued that he (through the executive) doesn't require court orders in manners of national security. Revealing state secrets would definately fall under the national security umbrella. So by this logic, no court order is required, so why would one be sought?

Just to recap what this adminstration has publically argued:

• The president can unilaterally order surveillance on American citizens.
• The president can order the arrest of an American citizen, and hold that citizen for an inderterminate amount of time in a secret location without charge.
• The president can declare that American citizen an "enemy combatant" and try him in an extra-judicial proceeding that where the executive branch serves as prosecutor, judge, and jury. This proceeding can order the death penalty.
• The president can order "extraordinary interogations" (i.e. torture) or individuals.
• The president has the power to violate the law in manners related to national security.
• The president is the sole determiner of when this may occur.
• The president's power in these matters are above oversight.

This is distrurbing. This is too much power for one man. That's why the founding fathers created a system of checks and balances on the executive. What does the adminstration say to a lay my fears? "Trust us." No. No I don't, and more importantly, I live in a country with a form a government where I don't have to.

Just though a few facts might counter the hysteria. The sky isnt falling - at least in this instance - the laws are working as they are written to do. And those of you who cite "Secret Prison Camps" - go back and re-research that. They apparently never existed and were a

Remember the constitution?

[SmokedS]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Someone may argue some legal mumbo jumbo that purports to show that the constitution doesn't really say what you just read above, but that just sophistry. What is meant is eminently clear:

1. Government officials get to trespass on the privacy of citizens only when they have a warrant.
2. A warrant shall only be issued when there is probable cause.

The NSA have grabbed the records of tens of millions of American citizens without a warrant. That's all you need to know.

Before someone shouts: "But the PATRIOT ACT!":
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The PATRIOT act. That name is one sick piece of propaganda. It goes against everything the constitution stands for. Speaking of the constitution: Anyone remember this quote?

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That's what Bush swore. Remember?

How about these quotes? Remember them?

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.

A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

I thought that was what Americans were supposed to stand for!

Midterm Elections in 6 months

[Phoenix666]

The only way to change this situation is to get a Democratic majority in Congress. Sorry, Republicans and Independents, the Republican majority has already substantially demonstrated they have no interest in protecting and upholding the Constitution. They must out. A Democratic majority will investigate and impeach, and the Republic will be safe once again. Conservatives have an edge in SCOTUS; fine, they can stay for a while so we have balance again. But the administration and corrupt members of Congress must be impeached and imprisoned.

How do you make this happen? Work for a Democratic candidate where you live and help elect them. If you're in New York, there's a great organization called New Democratic Majority (newdemmajority.org) that has been working since 2003 on the grassroots level to win seats back from Republicans. Elsewhere there are lots of organizations working on the same thing. Pick one and pitch in. Personally, I like grassroots because you can do more interesting things than stuff envelopes, but pick whatever suits your fancy. Just do something. Heck, even if you're a disaffected Republican, it's really important to the future of the country that you put your shoulder to the wheel too. There are lots of groups that aren't loosie-goosie hippy-cum-bleeding hearts, in fact. Most are eminently reasonable and pragmatic.

Just do it!

Re:Go after lib when hungry, but conserv for sport

[Ohreally_factor]

Save your breath (or your typing fingers). He's drunk the koolaid; for him, anything that doesn't fit the Party line has a liberal spin. His kind are like a wall I've been banging my head against for the past eight years (at least).

Besides, do you really expect any sort of intellectual honesty from the remaining 29%? You know, the backwash?

Give Me A Break!

[N8F8]

1). This is the same press that has been nailed with scandal after scandal of lying to create sensationalism. I mean, what's the downside of lying here? They fcking hate the administration so a little lie gets them lots of attention and spins the haters even more.

2). You simply can't have a security policy where nutjobs working on secure projects figure their right to blab overrides everyone else's right to use technological advantages to catch the bad guys. This thing is self feeding because the press always tells half the truth and obscures the facts. Fck, most of the population now thinks the only reason we invaded Iraq was either because of WMD or Oil and that the government is listening in on everyone's phone conversations. LIES! LIES! LIES! LIES! Saddest of all, a bunch of you are happy to hear the lies and turn off your brains.

That should last a good 10 minutes

[Garse Janacek]

Brian Ross, Chief Investigative Correspondent for ABC news says a confidential source informed him...

Heh... yeah... good luck with that...

Re:Alrighty...

[devfsadm]

The phone companies have been recording this information for some time. I believe since 1991-1992. President Bush's phone history is part of phone companies' records as well. The NSA has been collecting this information via a third party since 2001 and this is not the same as having a camera installed in your home. But, it might be the same as having a camera installed down the street on top of a streetlight. Which records events that are out in the public. Just like a phone call to a private company that is recording your phone number. The recording/logging of the number you called is made from outside of your house at a privately owned switching station.
And the president's call to Saudi Arabia is not a call that would be planning the next 9-11 style attack. However, multiple calls to Saudi Arabia to a know terrorist from a middle eastern citizen or arms dealer in the united states might be useful to prevent another disaster. Your regular Sunday call to your mother is of no value to the NSA.

I hate the way the media has twisted this story. Most of the headlines are along the lines of "The NSA has secretly recorded" or "Our government has secretly recorded" and the democrat agenda is "Lets destroy the republican party so we can win in 2008". Seems like all the democrats are jumping on the bandwagon to try to use this story to influence people politically even though there is not much of a story there. "blah blah blah" is all I hear. This story will be dropped by the democrats and focus will be turned into the Presidents immigrant solutions.

I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.
-President Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20 060511-1.html

Re:Go after lib when hungry, but conserv for sport

[Scudsucker]

When was the last time that the board of directors of Time Warner, General Electric, etc. were writing the on-air scripts and editing film clips and audio?

Straw man. Ever hear of delegation?

The people who do those tasks overwhelmingly identify themselves are liberals

Conservative urban legend. "Studies" that demonstrate this are notoriously flawed.

They'll interview a lawyer/PR spokesperson from the pro-gun control or pro-choice side but not interview a lawyer/PR spokesperson for the other sides,

When. And being pro-choice should be a conservative position as well as a liberal one, as one of the long standing positions of conservatives and the GOP is that the government should stay out of people's private lives. But of course the GOP is now built on top of the God-gun nut-free market jihad, so you'll see this kind of double standards and hypocracy all the time.

And besides if you want to talk about how media covers stories, remmber that the media was overwhelmingly pro-NAFTA and pro globalization, as well as pro-deregulation and pro-big business. CEO's and other businesspoeple outnumber workers interests, such as unions, by thirty to one for media appearances. There are many television programs devoted to business, but not a one to workers or consumers.

rather they'll go find some fool wearing a bit too much camoflauge

Well, that is a rather accurate chariacature of the NRA. Rather than talking about gun education and the responsiblities of gun ownership, all of their political efforts focus on fighting off all forms of gun control. They talk about firearms as if they were magical firearms, guranteed to keep away robbers and evil governments. Speaking of evil governments, they complained about that a great deal during the Clinton years, going so far as to call federal agents "jack-booted government thugs". They've been oddly quiet during all of Bush's shenanigans, however. There's that hypocracy thing again.

Re:What's scary are the comments left on the ABC b

[z0idberg]

Perhaps the ABC could now go back through that page and post the IP address that every comment was made from next to each comment. Surely no-one would have a problem with that. Losing a little privacy/anonimity is a small price to pay in the War on Terror right?

Opinions?

[Lagged2Death]

I wish people such as yourself would stop confusing "strong opinion" for "fact".

Could you be more specific? I don't think I'm doing that here.

Speak softly and carry a big stick; which in this case would be credible (read: not left-leaning blogs) citations.

You're implying that my sources are no good without actually making a specific accusation.

My three links were:

1) A video and transcript of the opening of the Senate Judiciary Committee session. A factual record, not an opinion piece.

2) A Washington Post news story. Not an opinion piece. Not a left-leaning blog.

3) Remarks concerning the PATRIOT act by President George W. Bush, which included links to the official transcripts.

None of these items are matters of "strong opinion," and I frankly think that would be clear from even a cursory examination of the actual linked pages rather than just the domain names. The sources in these cases are ultimately 1) The Senate 2) The Attorney General 3) The President.

Re:Oh, but ...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Oh, but this is the "Permanent Republican Majority", right? AKA, the Thousand Year Right? Therefore there will never again be a non-Republican president, and therefore we can trust them all.

If most of the Left thinks the way you do, the Right is prolly right. Face it, the Democrats need to get together on some idea other than "Bush is teh debhil!!!!". Because if they don't they won't see much of the White House for a long time to come.

Have you ever bothered to keep up on Democratic Presidents since WW2? Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman. Of those, Clinton was elected twice. Truman served two terms as President, even though he was elected only once.

Republican Presidents, same period - Eisonhower, Nixon, (Ford), Reagan, Bush, Bush. Ford is questionable - the only US President never elected to either the Presidency or vice Presidency. Of the others, only one (Bush the Elder) failed of reelection.

See the pattern here? The Democrats have traditionally been very popular in Congress (though much of that popularity has been due to the Old South voting solidly Democrat since the Civil War - they were annoyed that the Republicans had freed the slaves - which Party loyalty has been fading in recent decades), but really haven't done so well in the White House. Their really bright period was pre-Civil war, when there was no real opposition (the Federalists imploded after Adams, and the Whigs never were a serious contender).

Alas, the Democrats have been trying their best to marginalize themselves for decades. The "working man" would be solidly Democratic, if only the Dems would stop embracing every lunatic fringe on the left (most "working men" are pretty conservative, except for their positions on the whole management-labor argument). Many religious types would be solidly Democratic as well, but for the same embracing of every lunatic fringe - most religious people are more comfortable with socialism than you might think from looking at current politics.

Frankly, if the Democrats were to dump their "loony left", then they'd solidly dominate American politics (if the Republicans would dump their "loony right", they'd get little real benefit - the Left won't shift Republican if the Republicans move more centrist).

It's a crime!

[skrowl]

Leaking confidential documents is a federal crime.

Even though you all seem to support the crime that has been committed, that doesn't change the fact that it's a crime. Criminals should be brought to justice.

Dissent is legal, propogating your dissent by leaking confidential documents is a crime.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!!!

The way I see it

[erroneus]

The way I see it is that people "in the know" have two means by which to draw attention to corruption:

1. Resigning
2. Leak the information to the free press

We are seeing both.

Before we all go off half-cocked...

[TheConfusedOne]

Yeah, yeah, way too late for that.

You do realize that phone records of reporters could be legally subpoenaed as part of a leak investigation being performed by the DoJ instead of some nefarious link to the NSA program don't you?

I could also point out that pen register information (phone numbers dialed) is not considerred protected by the Fourth Ammendment either. There are other laws that may or may not protect these records depending on the circumstances but it's not a Fourth Ammendment issue.

Don't need reporter's phone records to do this

[John Jorsett]

All you really need is the reporter's phone numbers. Then you can do a search against outgoing call records from government phones. That might let calls by gov't officials from private phones get by (however, I'm not sure if high-security-clearance folks essentially sign away their rights to privacy in return for their clearances; if so, even calls from their private phones might be subject to this).