NSA phone records story excites Washington(Trying to take down Michael Hayden)

Chicago Tribune ^ | 11 May 2006 | Frank James at 1:10 pm CDT

[demlosers]

Washington is agog today with the disclosure that appeared in USA Today that Verizon, AT&T and Bell South have been providing domestic phone call information to the National Security Agency on millions of residential and business phone calls made by Americans.

It’s all part of the spy agency’s quest to create a huge database of caller information it could data mine in order to find patterns that might reveal terrorist communications. But it has raised enormous privacy concerns in the minds of many.

The USA Today report, coming after last year’s disclosure in the New York Times of the NSA’s warrantless electronic surveillance of phone calls it deems to be connected to terrorism ginned up the debate over how far is too far in the Bush administration’s efforts to protect the American people from al Qaeda and other terrorists.

The newspaper’s disclosure modified a lot of plans today. President Bush, on his way to give a commencement address in Biloxi, Miss., stopped in the White House’s Diplomatic Reception Room to deliver a brief statement to the press.

By the way, the president’s rapid response was remarkable. When other bad news has hit, say Dubai Ports World or the initial revelations of the NSA surveillance last December, there was a noticeable lag which allowed White House critics to define the debate.

The president’s quickness before today might be attributable to Tony Snow, the new press secretary. Or it could be that the White House is so nervous about the president’s ever lower poll ratings that he and his advisors felt he had to speak and quickly.

PRESIDENT BUSH: After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized

[roses of sharon]

The President should grovel no more for these pretentious milksops, its unseemly. IMO

[Liberty Valance]

I don't mind my phone calls being monitored. Thank goodness they can't monitor what i type on my keybo[[[[/[[//[[[[[//[[[/[[[/[/[/[[[[[[/[/[[[[[[/


;o)

[Lowell]

What in the hell are you missing?? / NOBODY IS BEING INVESTIGATED / HENCE NO CRIME. The 4th amendment doesn’t even apply to this. My recommendation is get back into the fourth grade for a quick refresher course.

[demlosers]

I won't waste any more time by reading responses, an action which will surely get me accused of cowardice.

Don't come back and piss & moan when the US of A gets attacked by al Qaeda's WMDs that you and your buddies in the DNC could have prevented.

[ndt]

"Sorry, but this battle was lost long ago."

I wouldn't say lost but the slippery slope was descended long ago.

"Data mining is just a logical update of these practices and probably not new post-9/11."

Again, you are correct but what kills me is that here we all are, defending what we should be fighting against. Just because we didn't start it does not justify continuing much less expanding illegal and even unconstitutional behavior.

[demlosers]

Why don't they simply require warning labels on all phones.

Well, they do in the military with a red label attached to each phone stating "This is not a secure line." Yes, maybe they need one for civilian phones too.

[Cementjungle]

Well, they do in the military with a red label attached to each phone stating "This is not a secure line." Yes, maybe they need one for civilian phones too.

Great idea. Perhaps the civilian phone version should be in Arabic so the terrorists can't claim they weren't warned.

[sinkspur]

The Law is the US Communications Act of 1934 and it's not particularly complicated although you seem to be having trouble reading it.

I believe the 1934 law has been superceded by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Victoria Toensig was on FOXNEWS earlier, stating that this law specifically authorizes the Telecommunications companies themselves to cooperate with the government in furnishing information to track terrorists. I haven't read it yet.

Perhaps you should.

[demlosers]

What exactly is the domestic phone call information they collect?

My guess... is phone calls that may have connected to known or suspected terrorist network phone numbers overseas.

[demlosers]

Great idea. Perhaps the civilian phone version should be in Arabic so the terrorists can't claim they weren't warned.

Yeah... terrorist killers have rights too. LoL!

[joylyn]

I understand your feelings, but that doesn't make this survellance either illegal or unconstitutional. I would argue that what we are defending against is a government's ability to use information against us unfairly.

[SE Mom]

"IN A BOLD AND CONTROVERSIAL DECISION, the president authorized a program for the surveillance of communications within the United States, seeking to prevent acts of domestic sabotage and espionage. In so doing, he ignored a statute that possibly forbade such activity, even though high-profile federal judges had affirmed the statute's validity. The president sought statutory amendments allowing this surveillance but, when no such legislation was forthcoming, he continued the program nonetheless. And when Congress demanded that he disclose details of the surveillance program, the attorney general said, in no uncertain terms, that it would get nothing of the sort."

---

The above statement was written about the hero president of the Democrats, President Franklin Roosevelt.

Link: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9790

[ndt]

"Perhaps you should."

I have :)

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 builds upon the one from 1934, it does not replace it.

The additions in regards to subscriber privacy are made by referring to The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.

Section 2511 (2)(a)(i)(ii) of the ECPA states (heavily abbreviated see link above for full text)
"...providers of wire or electronic communication service. .. are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with--

(A) a court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge, or

(B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met..."

I would put money on it that it is the second provision (the Attorney General) that was used here. The problem is that FISA does not allow a blanket sweep like this and if the A.G. did in fact certification in writing that "no warrant or court order is required by law" he is terribly mistaken and according to FISA, criminally so.

Now I'm sure you will say that is B.S. and I'll be happy to post the relevant sections of FISA which you can then ignore too.

[sinkspur]

Don't post them to me.

Post them to Alberto Gonzales, and the legal teams at Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth. Oh, and to Trent Lott, Lindsay Graham, Jane Harman, and Dick Durbin, all of whom were briefed about this surveillance.

What "blanket sweep"? Phone numbers, with no identification, would hardly be helpful to anybody unless the NSA was already tracking a particular number that had been in communication with an al-Qaeda terrorist suspect.

Cluster-identifier programs could then identify who, in the US, had been in communication with that particular number.

Any surveillance of the content would require a warrant.

[thelastvirgil]

Considering the total lack of spine in the Republican caucus in the senate, consider Hayden all but done.

Next step? Find the leakers, and hang them publicly. There is a conspiracy to undermine both this administration and the WOT. Somebody needs to pay --bigtime and hardtime.

[ndt]

"Phone numbers, with no identification..."

Phone numbers are personally identifiable information. That is how the law is written.

"would hardly be helpful to anybody unless the NSA was already tracking a particular number "

Then get a warrant for the numbers they want to track. I have no problem with that. Data mining in this context is only useful to find the unknown AKA "fishing expedition"

"Cluster-identifier programs could then identify who, in the US, had been in communication with that particular number."

And tag more false positives that correct hits, subjecting countless innocent Americans to government scrutiny without probable cause.

[ndt]

"The above statement was written about the hero president of the Democrats, President Franklin Roosevelt. "

Sad day when the Republican Party holds up FDR as an example of how to do things. Sheesh..

[cgbg]

Next step? Find the leakers, and hang them publicly

This "leak" could have been another "cheese trap" for Rats in the intelligence community.

Let us hope so.

[sinkspur]

And tag more false positives that correct hits, subjecting countless innocent Americans to government scrutiny without probable cause.

Is this search unreasonable? Let's put it to a vote of the American people, or even let the Supreme Court decide.

I'd wager the answer would be "no."

[SE Mom]

Oh come on! That's not the point I was making. The hysteria over this by the MSM and assorted liberals is absurd. Bob Barr was apoplectic today on tv.

This information came out MONTHS ago. It is NOT new. It has been discussed in the media and by politicians in the recent past.

As to FDR and the comparison- the point is- in war presidents do things they wouldn't dream of doing during peace.