Posted on 12/20/2005 10:17:17 PM PST by indianrightwinger
Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.
The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact "international."
Telecommunications experts say the issue points up troubling logistical questions about the program. At a time when communications networks are increasingly globalized, it is sometimes difficult even for the N.S.A. to determine whether someone is inside or outside the United States when making a cellphone call or sending an e-mail message. As a result, people that the security agency may think are outside the United States are actually on American soil.
Vice President Dick Cheney entered the debate over the legality of the program on Tuesday, casting the program as part of the administration's efforts to assert broader presidential powers. [Page A36.]
Eavesdropping on communications between two people who are both inside the United States is prohibited under Mr. Bush's order allowing some domestic surveillance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Of course, it mentions these were few and accidental. But the thrust of the article is by no means a backtrack.
NOW they are discussing this with the NSA? They sat on this story for over a year and did they ever once get the NSA's side of the story before now?
It mentions a few times that the Whitehouse required and insisted that one-end of the call be International. That is a MAJOR point in favor of the Administration they are making.
The full read of the article will make anyone come away with the feeling that the administration worked and tried hard to ensure it was not an intrusive program.
The only actual person quoted was Vice President Cheney.
The point is that in the case of President Bush these are people with clear ties to terrorism, not Joe or Jill Six-Pack as the Dems are trying to characterize it.
If the Dems want an investigate the Bush phone call spying, perhaps the Republicans should say 'yes', provisional on investigating the Bush spying AND the Clinton spying and maybe even the Carter Spying! Insist on dragging Clinton's questionable use of spying onto the front burner and watch Carl Levin et.al. start backpeddling!
I believe that, but my point is how the Times is slanting this story. If anyone thinks NYTimes readers will read this and think "Bush was right," I don't agree. They'll think "Yeah, 'accidental' wiretaps of domestic calls, sure they were accidental!" Just look at some of the threads on the looney sites today.
Clinton's name has been dragged into it within at least the last 24 hours - which combined with Pres Bush's latest poll numbers made the nyt go "uh-oh". The dems are going "oh sh!t".
Thousands of fully legal electronic intercepts over a three year period and the NY Times and their liberal komrades can come up with just one questionable case? And a major issue developes out of this? If not for a well thought out setup by the crooked, agenda-driven media this whole phoney issue of alleged 'illegal wiretapping' would have been impossible to pull off. The liberals are pathetic, and I really hope this one backfires in their faces.
The headline is certainly intended to create such impression.
But, the article itself is a bit more sane, and if anything was counter to my expectation that it will be just another hit piece on the Administration. That of course is the SOP at NYT.
"The concerns led to a secret audit, which did not reveal any abuses in focusing on suspects or instances in which purely domestic communications were monitored, said officials familiar with the classified findings."
I bet that was hard for them to print.
It already is. They have no legs to stand on.
I sense the story dying.
You get the lie out first, let it circulate for a few days, do some damage, then start modifying the original statement. By then, the damage is done.
I don't remember the NY Times being outraged when two Democrat operatives intercepted & taped a phone conversation between Republicans, among them Newt Gingrich. That conversation certainly wasn't an international call and they sure as heck didn't have a warrant.
Finding logic in NYT's outrage is not going to be the way to waste our energy. Defending the anti-terrorist policy is the best use of it.
Maybe one of the owner of the cell phone was in Prague meeting with al Ani while someone else borrowed his phone here at home.
Precisely! This isn't the first time and it won't be the last time that the NYT has used this tactic to chip away at President Bush's public image. I don't recall the exact number of days (32 or 33 ?) that the NYT ran Abu Grebe Prison stories on the front page. Same reason then as now.
Just asking, how is it that the two Democrat operatives were tried and convicted while the Democrat congressman (McDermott) who gave the transcript to the NYT was never criminally charged?
Even if it is true that a very small fraction of calls originated and terminated domestically were accidently included, having a warrant would have made no difference. The article points out that it was a technical issue involving international cells phone used in the U.S. or emails (probably registered overseas). Often a wiretap may snag calls that aren't under a warrant. When that is the case the recording of a particular call is stopped. And any info obtained in any call that is not related to the warrant, or in this case national security, can not be used anyway (i.e. muhammud admitted to stealing a coke from the 7-11). No wiretap, with or without a warrant, is going to be 100% perfect. So if Zarqawi came to the U.S. and made a call on his Syrian cell phone to call an AL Queda cell in Buffalo, maybe the call was intercepted. Good.
Plus, this is the NYT, we do not even know if any calls both originating and terminating on U.S. were really intercepted. But the article even admits it was accidental based on techincal issues for a very small fraction. A reasonable and not unexpected side effect.
The real problem is the leaker(s) providing this classified informantion to the reporters...undermining our national security and causing real harm!
Do the liberal media and liberal politicians think that undermining our security and supporting the terrorists will help their cause with the American public? They are sadly mistaken.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.