White House Says Phone Wiretaps Will Resume For Now

austinhook brings us news that the U.S. government has resumed wiretapping with the help of telecommunications companies. The companies are said to have "understandable misgivings" over the unresolved issue of retroactive immunity for their participation in past wiretapping. Spy agencies have claimed that the expiration of the old legislation has caused them to miss important information. The bill that would grant the immunity passed in the Senate, but not in the House.

Comments

Resuming wiretaps

[Ice Wewe]

...that the U.S. government has resumed wiretapping with the help of telecommunications companies.

Which just goes to show you that they never had any intention to stop wiretapping, just to throw a big tantrum over it and then go back to spying on Americans the good old fashioned way, illegally.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[DittoBox]

Gee, I don't know. Because non-Americans are *gasp* humans as well?

Everyone, not just Americans, deserve basic human rights. You may think you can put a label on someone (EG "terrorist") and then they somehow become less human, so you can do whatever you damn well please.

What if, say, Japan or France or some other foreign nation decided that we were a "terrorist threat," and decided to begin wire tapping conversations going from America to Japan or France? Or originating in those countries? Wouldn't that make sense that you would be outraged that your conversations were being wire tapped by another country? What if you were French or Japanese?

Or how about another country takes you and puts you in their prison, without any kind of legal recourse. They just need to slap a label on you and call it good. Then torture you.

I thought we busted the Japanese for water-boarding in WWII...or was that the Germans? No, wait, it was both. We also busted them for slapping labels on people and locking them up without any legal recourse.

The reason these rights were instituted among men is because you are human, not because you're born in some arbitrary nation.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[fangorious]

So does that make the CIA an illegal organization then? I mean, it's their job to spy on foreign countries.

That's a strawman. Firstly because it's the NSA that's conducting surveillance, not the CIA. Secondly because I said the Constitution requires a warrant to conduct a search, not that spying is illegal. Having judicial oversight is the designated balance between the government not being able to perform its duties to defend the country and the government growing into an oppressive tyranny. I have no problem with legal intelligence gathering. The rules are spelled out, and there's a process that allows for changing them.

If the Constitution applies to ALL people of the earth, shouldn't we be invading all these other countries and removing their current, illegal governments? Shouldn't these people be voting in elections and sending the winners to Washington to serve in Congress? Shouldn't we be taxing their populations? Shouldn't we be using our military to guarantee these rights to the peoples of the world?

We have been using our military to "spread democracy" for 60 years, and the CIA to overthrow democracy and install dictators, and then often have to send in the military to remove them. It's why so many people around the world hate us. If an oppressed group of people need and seek outside help, then I have no problem with international forces coming to the rescue. We just need to follow our Constitution by declaring war with a clear and well-defined goal and follow the Geneva Conventions.

Also, "inalienable human rights" was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Tell me how I'm the confused one again?

You're confused because you inferred a quotation where the was none, notice the lack of such notation in my original post. The discussion is regarding the legality of certain government actions. The Declaration of Independence says why we needed a new government. The Constitution defines that government, in such a way as to honor those inalienable human rights. So any discussion of what the government can and can't do must therefore refer to the Constitution.

Well that answers the immunity question...

[TheRaven64]

Retroactive immunity is now a moot point. Previously they could argue that they weren't aware that they were operating illegally. Now they surely have no such defence. I'm sure some of the lawyers on Capitol Hill will start using words like 'wilfully' now.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[htnprm]

BS. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Telcos are well aware of the details under FISA. Honestly. The fact that your average American does nothing as a result of the evidence that this administration has been illegally wiretapping since 2002, if not before (Well before the Protect America Act was passed) says so much. People I speak to are waiting for Obama to change things. Well. Wait for this to change:

If Obama is elected - "I haven't had enough time in four years to change anything, so elect me again".
At the next congressional elections - "We haven't had enough time with a Democrat as President, so elect us again". ...What will you all do when nothing changes? I'm taking bets if anyone is interest.

(Note, this post is not a message against Obama, or for any other candidate. Just pointing out details regarding a candidate who everyone thinks will change things, but who is simply another politician, and an individual person, up against the whole of the political machine).

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[whoisjoe]

Hmm... We may actually have to impeach this asshat before the election. We *need* to impeach both of these asshats before the election (both Dubya and Darth Cheney). Given all of their crimes (from misleading the public to sell a war to willfully performing unlawful searches), not impeaching them sends the message to future administrations that this sort of behavior is OK.

Re:How do they know?

[MyNameIsFred]

...How do they know that they've missed important information, if they aren't wiretapping?...

It's not that hard to presume that they know they are missing information. Assume they recorded a conversation that was important, and part of that conversation was let's talk every Thursday. Or they said we're putting everything in place, we'll contact you shortly with the time. Although those examples raise the question of why don't you just get a warrant...

I call B.S.

[christurkel]

Spy agencies have claimed that the expiration of the old legislation has caused them to miss important information.

Riiiiiiiiight. If you can't illegally wiretap, how could you possibly know what you missed? Besides, there is a perfectly good FISA court still around; you can even wiretap and get a warrant 72 hours later.

Fear mongering sucks. We're a better nation than this.

Re:I call B.S.

[johnsonav]

The real question for me is, why not get FISA warrants? By all accounts, they are a rubber stamp that will grant most any warrant. The FISA court was set up for exactly the type of activities that they say they are doing. So by circumventing that process, I can only conclude that the real program is much more broad, and illegal, than they are letting on.

Re:I call B.S.

[Lloyd_Bryant]

The real question for me is, why not get FISA warrants? By all accounts, they are a rubber stamp that will grant most any warrant. The FISA court was set up for exactly the type of activities that they say they are doing. So by circumventing that process, I can only conclude that the real program is much more broad, and illegal, than they are letting on. Even more than a rubber stamp, since the spook agencies are allowed to begin surveillance, *then* apply for the warrant (up to 72 hours later).

But the issue, I think, is the paperwork. For instance, each application must be personally approved by the Attorney General (can you imagine poor Mr. Gonzales having to review and sign hundreds or thousands of such applications at a time?).

The surveillance carried out in support of the "war on terror" is orders of magnitude greater than was contemplated when the FISA court was created. So Bush & Co. simply decided to ignore the problem and proceed without bothering to get warrants from the FISA court.

Re:I call B.S.

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

There is not war on terrorism. War is the wrong word. There are military actions against disparate groups around the world, and there certainly was a war against Iraq which we won but had nothing to do with terrorism, before or during, now there is a threat of Terroism from the mistakes made in that war such that an Al Qauda group has formed in Iraq that was not there before. There is an occupation in Iraq but it is not a war. Iraq has a civil war going on and has groups resistant to the occupation but it is not a War.

So I hate to see the Republican Fear Marketing slogan War on Terror used. It is really like the 1984 war with the Northeast (if I remember right). That continuous war that keeps the population under martial law and rallied around the flag. For what, for accumlation of power.

So the War against Terror is just like the War against Poverty or the War against Aids. Its not a war, its a slogan, lets not forget that. It should not invoke war powers for the Executive branch. Actually it did not, the war powers were granted to go to war against Iraq because they were claimed (falsely and brazenly and seemingly with full knowledge of that falsness) have weapons of mass destruction. Valerie Elise Plame Wilson was outed as a CIA agent because that lie was being exposed by her husband.

Lets not forget the War on Terror is just a marketing slogan and get on with the business of cleaning up the mess in Iraq and the mess in Afganistan.

Terrists exist, there are terrorist who are targeting the US and other countries as well, but giving up our Constitutional rights and protections isn't the way to go. The Executive has lead us into improsonment with no charges, lack of due process, torture, rendition, wiretapping, ... and we dont know the entire extent. This blossoming of illegal unconstitional behavior is unprecedented and I feel unwarranted and the scope and type of those behaviors does not make me trust the ones doing those behaviors.

Marketing slogans should be reserved for those selling soap.

Re:I call B.S.

[ardent99]

The exact quote from a letter from U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell is "We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act," which was in TFA, if you had bothered to read it. Their obvious position is that "intelligence" information is "important" information, or they wouldn't be bothering with this at all.

I find it interesting that rather than address the issue on the merits, you chose instead to make an ad hominem attack on all reporters, say they are unintelligent and shouldn't be trusted, and project an air of arrogance and disdain to further deflect any disagreement.

You seem to be willfully diverting the question from the merits of the administration's remarks to an untruthful characterization of the reporting, a typical tactic of administration apologists. So let's summarize:

1) The administration says something
2) It gets accurately reported
3) You call reporters unintelligent, an ad hominem attack on the messenger,
without actually showing they did anything wrong
4) You assume an air of arrogance and disdain to deflect any questioning of your unjustified statements
5) In the end you have contributed nothing to the discussion of what actually happened

Maybe next time you can actually address the issue rather than mischaracterizing its reporting? What's actually a bit sad is that your comment was modded +3 insightful for making that little bit of flamebait.

Now he says that?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bush has said he would hold out for a permanent overhaul of the 1978 surveillance law."

Wow, what a brilliant idea! Too bad Bush didn't suggest that BEFORE authorizing an illegal program and goading the telecom companies into going along with it. Had he done so he wouldn't need to get retroactive immunity for them.

I think everybody understands that in the height of an emergency tough decisions have to be made, but the next priority should have been to move for revision to the FISA legislation, not keep the thing secret for several years and then try to bail out the organizations involved once people found out the law was being broken. Don't like constraints of the FISA law? Conform to it, revise the legislation, or break the law and face the legal consequences. There is no other option for a person holding office who has sworn an oath to uphold the law. Well, there isn't supposed to be.

Bush Blows It

[Doc Ruby]

Yesterday, Bush barfed at us in his radio address:

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that Democratic leaders in the House are blocking key intelligence legislation so trial lawyers can sue phone companies that helped the government eavesdrop on suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Terrorists are plotting new attacks against America "at this very moment," Bush said in renewing his call for the House to pass legislation needed to renew the intelligence law that expired last weekend.

Bush has his new Attorney General lying to back him up, but they can't even keep their stories straight:

The Bush administration said yesterday that the government "lost intelligence information" because House Democrats allowed a surveillance law to expire last week, causing some telecommunications companies to refuse to cooperate with terrorism-related wiretapping orders.

But hours later, administration officials told lawmakers that the final holdout among the companies had relented and agreed to fully participate in the surveillance program, according to an official familiar with the issue.

It's obvious that it's Bush's fault the PAA expired without extension:

But even if telecoms were refusing to cooperate, the reason for their refusal was not because they don't have retroactive immunity, but rather, it's because there is alleged uncertainty over the legality of current surveillance requests, and uncertainty over the ongoing validity of the prospective immunity provided by the PAA, because the PAA expired. If the PAA had been extended, they would be completely protected with prospective immunity for future surveillance cooperation. And, of course, the PAA would not have expired had Congressional Democrats had their way -- they wanted to extend it until they could agree to a new bill. Thus, any alleged refusal on the part of telecoms to cooperate is exclusively the fault of Bush and House Republicans for forcing expiration of the PAA. That's just true as a matter of basic logic.

The bottom line is that Bush's own Attorney General just admitted that he and Bush and the rest are repeatedly breaking the law:

But leave all of that aside for a moment. Since Mike Mukasey himself just said in this letter that spying outside of FISA is "illegal," and since it's indisputable that the Bush administration did just that for years, doesn't that compel him as Attorney General to commence a criminal investigation into this "illegal" conduct?

What does it take to get impeached in this country? Will someome please blow Bush already, so we can finally get it over with?

Re:Bush Blows It

[Carewolf]

No one is going to impeach the president as long as the vice president is more corrupt and criminal than the president is.

Re:Bush Blows It

[Doc Ruby]

The Democrats are playing it "safe" because Bush/Cheney's crimes make it cheaper and easier for Democrats to run against them this year. So they're bottling us up in here with them, our only way out seemingly to hand Democrats a trifecta power monopoly. Democrats mainly care about increasing their nominal Senate majority closer 60:40, with Republicans defending 23 seats to Democrats 11. In January the Congress will also probably have some thing like a 15-20 point Democratic House majority, possibly that 60+ seat filibuster-proof Senate, and a Democratic president with the first actual majority of voters since Reagan.

With which Democrats can abuse all those "Bush/Cheney" tyrannical powers without the Iraq War that gets you caught. But with the Iraq War that gets you paid.

Quite a racket. Which is why Americans should force them to impeach, or at least make it as costly as possible not to. Because Republicans will be in no position of any kind to offer the kind of "opposition party" these Democrats couldn't muster even the past 8 years with very solid minorities and blatant catastrophes.

The missing party, as usual. is the American people. And decent country would be out in the streets with pitchforks and torches by now, especially with economic collapse staring everyone in the face. Instead, we've got Slashdot and the Daily Kos. And President VP Cheney.

They're playing to cover their own crimes

[Phoenix666]

If the Whitehouse can bully Congress into passing retroactive immunity to the telecoms for warrantless wiretapping, then they also by extension are exhonerated. So, they get to get a free pass for breaking the law without directly asking Congress to give it to them.

There's a word for this: Fascism

[Ralph Spoilsport]

They could do this legally through the FISA courts, but rather than go bother with even a Ruber Stamp court like FISA and at least pretend they're not spying on American citizens in direct violation of the fourth amendment for which the FISA courts were implemented to supposedly protect, they would rather run rough shod over everyone's privacy and interests for their own ends based out of their own incompetence and ignorance.

The sad part? There is no promise that any democratic administration would stop this.

Why? Because it's fascism, or, as one of the guys who invented fascism (Mussolini) caled it: Corporatism.

The American Empire is dying and it's a sad thing to watch it act, as WS Burroughs said in 1984, as the single greatest betrayal of the last and greatest of human dreams.

RS

Just by way of reminder

[HangingChad]

We were not completely surprised by the 9-11 hijackers, the problem was we didn't act on what we did know. Even then we knew. We knew without the Patriot Act, we knew without wholesale spying on the American public, we knew without the Protect America Act. We knew and did nothing. So now the solution is to spy on Americans. Makes almost as much sense as being attacked by terrorists operating out of Afghanistan and responding by attacking Iraq.

Only a Republican would think it makes sense to fight terrorism by monitoring my 83 year old mom's phone calls.

And, just in case this dust up has interfered with the intelligence community's ability to monitor the activity of Americans, the bake sale has been postponed until next week because the lady running it broke her hip and mom change her hair appointment to 11 am this week because Marge's family is flying in from Montana. And dad still can't figure out why his pineapple plants keep dying in the front yard. Now you're up to date.

Re:Just by way of reminder

[rubycodez]

re: nsacarnivore-20080915-1103535-2535EJA34032:
subject lives in climate where pineapples can grow, similar to asian areas with high islamic radical populations. relatives in Montana which is known abode of militia groups. subject altering appearance at 11am.

action: subject to be reclassified as probable threat to national security.

Revolution 2.0

[fishthegeek]

Will be fought one vote at a time. If the telecom providers didn't do anything wrong when they assisted the wiretaps then they do not need legal protection from congress. By moving to protect the telecom providers Congress is implicitly admitting that they acted in ways that are probably illegal.

Re:I just don't get it

[drooling-dog]

What does Bush want, other than to spy on everyone with no supervision whatsoever? Exactly this. The FISA court is practically a rubber stamp for legitimate surveillance, and yet Bush's spying needs are so super-sensitive that not even it can be allowed to catch wind of them. Unless you believe that the court has been infiltrated somehow by "the terrorists", there's only one logical reason for this: both the court and the public would be outraged if the real reason for the surveillance became known. Are they collecting commercial intelligence for their closest corporate patrons? Do they intend to tamper with the upcoming elections? Are they going to mess with political and ideological opponents? I'd worry about all three.

Re:I just don't get it

[Lijemo]

Because the previous rubber-stamp system left a paper-trail (albeit one they could claim was "classified for reasons of national security") as to who they were spying on and why, and thus had some amount of accountability, no matter how tiny.

The new system does not.

If there's anything this administration hates, it's accountability.

Now what?

[EaglemanBSA]

...and just when I thought the administration couldn't be any more open about breaking the law and violating my civil liberties. Honestly, does this piss everybody else off as much as it does me? I'm all for America, and I think we have a good number of good things going on over here, but this is getting ridiculous - we have these controls in place (the representatives of the people) to limit the power of the executive branch, and it's as if the administration doesn't even hear them.

I don't know what's worse, not having any input at all, or knowing that it won't be used in any decisions in the end anyway.

Re:Now what?

[EaglemanBSA]

My fiancee lives in a foreign country, and I call her every other day, you insensitive clod. Perhaps you missed the part where it's totally possible to monitor those phone conversations legally, with a warrant (at which point I would have no problem with it). Why the need for such secrecy, that the tap has to be without the approval of a judge, even 72 hours after the fact?

Beyond that, this isn't just about wiretapping phones. It sets a very dangerous precedent through which the executive branch can bypass the legislative branch's powers and act illegally with no fear of repercussions.

Re:I just don't get it

[bberens]

My speculation is this:

You get a warrant when you want to spy on SOMEONE. You don't get a warrant when you want to capture all inbound and outbound (from the country) telephone traffic and put it through your NSA analyzer supercomputer thingymajig looking for suspicious activity. You see, for something like this to work, you need a very large sample of data to compare to. You will never be given a warrant for little Felipe who wants to call mommy back in Italy to talk about spaghetti recipes. But you need that data as a base line.

Re:Criminal charges

[TheRaven64]

I'm not convinced. The current administration has so completely discredited the office of the president, both domestically and internationally, that it will take a lot to restore it. Pursuing criminal charges would send a message that the President is not a dictator, and that the new incumbent expected to be held to account for their actions.

catch22

[scifiber_phil]

Anyone against these wiretaps is suspect, and probably should be placed on the wiretap list? The language of the fourth amendment is clear and straight forward. The executive branch, the phone companies, and congress need to reread it a few times until they understand it. When they start arresting people for expressing concerns over the loss of our constitutional guaranteed rights, it will be too late. Forums like Slashdot etcetera will disappear. People will be afraid to post. Wiretaps without a warrant and fear of arrest will see to that.

Re:How do they know?

[10101001 10101001]

Although those examples raise the question of why don't you just get a warrant...

Because it'd undermine their power grab (aka the warrantless wiretapping program(s)) by showing that warrants get the job done. Isn't it great how, every time someone tries to force the Bush Administration to follow the law, which is more than sufficient to get the job done, there is screams of "you're making us vulnerable to the terrorists"? Bush can't let the man behind the curtain show his face (that the law works, and power grabs are wholly unnecessary), and Bush and company are perfectly willing to sacrifice the security of the nation--you know, one of those primary functions of the Presidency--to cover their own asses. But, then, this story is at least as old as the Iraq War* and the bullshit about WMDs.

*Note: There might be older examples, but the Iraq War one was exceptionally egregious.

Re:News at 11

[element-o.p.]

I've got to disagree with you there. The dude's got cojones so large, I'm amazed he can still walk.

Look at it this way. His attorney general when he first announced the program has left the post in disgrace. Congress refused to pass an act providing retroactive immunity to the telcos who first participated in program. The ACLU and EFF have filed lawsuits because of the wiretapping program. People across the county have spoken out against the program. And still he announces that the warrantless wiretapping has resumed. Sounds pretty brazen to me.

On the one hand, I want to believe that he is doing it with the best of intentions but is just to stupid to realize the long-term implications of such a thing. On the other hand, I am very, very afraid that he knows exactly what he is doing. In either case, this program is a (tm) Bad Thing and needs to end, permanently.

LAST TIME - Pay Attention

[not_hylas( )]

LAST TIME - pay attention.

It's wholesale data-mining.

Spying in the Death Star: The AT&T Whistle-Blower Tells His Story
Mark Klein = Patriot
Former AT&T technician

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/kleininterview

In room 641A at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco, California is a SPLITTER that duplicates ALL traffic and diverts it by the way of a proprietary black box to an unnamed acronymed agency.
Mark Klein called it a "Big Brother Machine".
It can't be more clear than that.

For all the folks that still don't get IT, good God!, go back to sleep, and or, quit posting drivel.

Re:News at 11

[Znork]

Sounds pretty brazen to me.

It's not like any lawsuit can do anything to him. He's got immunity. And it's not like he cares what people speak out against.

Courage requires risking something. Bush's merely an obstinate simpleton, something a coward can easily be. As long as he doesn't risk getting smacked in the face about it.

Re:For all you legal experts

[justinlee37]

I have never seen anyone show such blatant disregard for the constitution. The fourth amendment.

This is nothing like "requiring the police to get warrants for using radar guns to check if someone is speeding," because they're observing something in public. Listening to your private communications, without your knowledge, and without judicial review, is something entirely else. You expect that to be private. It would be no different if the NSA decided to open all of your mail and read it, without having their actions reviewed by a judge, and without telling you.

How would you feel then? Personally, I'd start to feel like it resembled Nazi Germany or Cold War Russia.

What we ought to be asking is, why hasn't the supreme court acted?

Hey, who is on the supreme court these days, anyway?

Impeachment

[MarkusQ]

Impeachment may have been worthwhile years ago, but at this point unfortunately it would be hugely counterproductive. It's far too late to really accomplish much of anything, and all the other asshats would have a field day politicizing it for the next election.

I beg to disagree, Impeachment is as important now as it ever was, and should be pursued (IMHO) even after the present administration has left office.

Why? Because the basic purpose of impeachment is not political theater, throwing the bums out, or any of the other nonsense that is commonly cited. Impeachment is about investigating plausible claims of wrong doing by high ranking officials and if the claims are true meting out appropriate consequences. We are in a very risky point in our history, but not because of the offenses against our constitution presently being perpetrated, but rather because of the precedent we setting by ignoring them. The third amendment

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

is interesting in that it is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the present administration hasn't been plausibly accused of violating. And yet we do nothing.

So turn the question around: if we aren't going to impeach now, when would we? And what sort of message does that send to future administrations, of either party?

--MarkusQ